Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages8.1%2024 · #20 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 659.8%2024 · #19 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6577.2%2024 · #6 of 50 · highest first
South Dakota over time
Explore South Dakota readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. South Dakota officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a South Dakota effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a South Dakota change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Uninsured rate · all ages South Dakota · source units
South DakotaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
3 of 3 reviewed South Dakota actions match · 3 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.
South Dakota · 2024: 8.1% · Rank #20 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
View observations and export data
South Dakota Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
South Dakota · state comparison
Who has health coverage?
Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.
South Dakota · 20248.1%
South Dakota rank#20among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Uninsured rate · all ages
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Dakota
2024 · South Dakota: 8.1% · Rank #20 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Dakota Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
South Dakota
Compare
2014
9.8%
2015
10.2%
2016
8.7%
2017
9.1%
2018
9.8%
2019
10.2%
2020
Not available
2021
9.5%
2022
8.1%
2023
8.3%
2024
8.1%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · 8.1%2024 · Rank #20 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota · your comparison
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of South Dakota’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare South Dakota with every state.
South Dakota · 2020$12,495
South Dakota rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Personal healthcare spending per resident
Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.
2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Dakota
2020 · South Dakota: $12,495 · Rank #7 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Dakota Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
South Dakota
Compare
2014
$9,103
2015
$9,627
2016
$10,046
2017
$10,440
2018
$11,086
2019
$11,627
2020
$12,495
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · $12,4952020 · Rank #7 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota · your comparison
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
South Dakota · 202277.3 years
South Dakota rank#24among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Life expectancy at birth
FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total South Dakota population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.
The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Dakota
2022 · South Dakota: 77.3 years · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Dakota Life expectancy at birth history
Period
South Dakota
Compare
2018
78.9 years
2019
78.4 years
2020
76.7 years
2021
76.6 years
2022
77.3 years
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · 77.3 years2022 · Rank #24 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota · your comparison
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
South Dakota · 202310.7%
South Dakota rank#20among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted
Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.
Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Dakota
2023 · South Dakota: 10.7% · Rank #20 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Dakota Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
South Dakota
Compare
2019
9.3%
2020
7%
2021
9.6%
2022
8.1%
2023
10.7%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · 10.7%2023 · Rank #20 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 8.9% – 12.8%Selected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota · your comparison
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
South Dakota · June 30, 202634.6%
South Dakota rank#43among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Primary care · need met
HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.
National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · 34.6%June 30, 2026 · Rank #43 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota · your comparison
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
South Dakota · 2020$7,070
South Dakota rank#26among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Single coverage premium · all firms
Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.
Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · $7,0702020 · Rank #26 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota · your comparison
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
South Dakota · 2023–202421.8%
South Dakota rank#42among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+
Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.
Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Dakota · 21.8%2023–2024 · Rank #42 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota · your comparison
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
3 of 3 reviewed South Dakota actions · newest first
Mar 20, 2026 · HB 1274 · prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor. · Enacted · Signed by governorSouth Dakota Legislature · HB 1274
prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor.
Mar 20, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Sen. Greg Blanc · Sponsored / Rep. John Hughes · Sponsored / Rep. John Sjaarda · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1274 prohibits knowingly dispensing, distributing, selling or advertising specified articles for an unlawful abortion under § 22-17-5.1. The referenced law retains the life-preservation exception based on appropriate and reasonable medical judgment. The new offense is a Class 6 felony; the attorney general may seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and injunctions. Signed March 20, 2026, this law cannot explain the 2025 abortion count.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-20. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions performed in South Dakota, including care for nonresidents. Restrictions on articles used for unlawful abortions concern access to abortion in the state; they do not establish how many abortions occurred. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Abortions performed in South Dakota. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That § 22-17-5.1 be AMENDED: 22-17-5.1. Any person who administers to any person or who prescribes or procures for any person any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: No person may knowingly dispense, distribute, sell, or advertise any of the following for purposes of an unlawful abortion pursuant to § 22-17-5.1: (1) An article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing an abortion; or (2) An article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing that is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing an abortion. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: The attorney general may recover a civil penalty against a person for violating section 2 of this Act. The amount of the civil penalty may not exceed ten thousand dollars for each violation. The clerk of court shall forward any civil penalty collected under this section to the state treasurer, for deposit in the life protection subfund, as established within the extraordinary litigation fund pursuant to § 1-33-8.11. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: If the attorney general has reason to believe that a person is engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in a violation of section 2 of this Act, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against the person to restrain the person by temporary or permanent injunction. An action under this section may be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the alleged violator resides or has a place of business, or in the circuit court for Hughes County, South Dakota. The court may issue a temporary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent any violation of section 2 of this Act. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jan 29, 2026 · HJR 5002 · proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, repealing the requirement to provide expanded medicaid. · Not enacted · House rejected passageSouth Dakota Legislature · HJR 5002
proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, repealing the requirement to provide expanded medicaid.
Jan 29, 2026 · Not enacted · House rejected passage
Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Rep. Bobbi Andera · Co-sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jana Hunt · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Kayser · Co-sponsored / Rep. Scott Moore · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kathy Rice · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tesa Schwans · Co-sponsored / Rep. John Sjaarda · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HJR 5002 proposed asking voters to repeal Article XXI, section 10, the constitutional Medicaid expansion requirement. The text proposed striking coverage for qualifying adults over 18 and under 65 at the specified income threshold. The House rejected passage on January 29, 2026. This resolution did not reach the ballot, repeal the constitutional provision, or establish that anyone lost Medicaid coverage.
The House rejected passage on 2026-01-29. The 2026 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The fact measures the uninsured share of residents under 65. The proposed repeal concerns the constitutional Medicaid coverage requirement for adults over 18 and under 65 who meet the income threshold. The resolution failed; it did not refer this repeal to voters, repeal coverage, or establish any loss of insurance. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, be submitted to the electors of the state for approval. Section 2. That Article XXI, § 10 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be REPEALED.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 24, 2025 · HB 1218 · address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals. · Enacted · Signed by governorSouth Dakota Legislature · HB 1218
address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals.
Mar 24, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Sen. Mykala Voita · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Lauren Nelson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Al Novstrup · Co-sponsored / Rep. Marty Overweg · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1218 bars counties, townships and municipalities from restricting lawful possession of concealed firearms and compatible ammunition by their employees, officers and volunteers in their owned or leased buildings, facilities, vehicles and real property. The protection excludes inmates. It also excludes people other than law enforcement officers in secure detention areas, mental health crisis centers and substance-use residential treatment facilities, or using a government vehicle to transport someone apprehended under chapter 27A-10. Municipalities may restrict dangerous weapons inside event buildings or facilities when metal detectors screen for weapons and armed security is posted at every public entrance. Signed March 24, 2025, the law does not establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-03-24. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide and accidents. Rules for lawful concealed possession concern firearm access in specified public workplaces and facilities. The connection does not establish a direction or size of any mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 7-18: A board of county commissioners may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a county employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any county building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the county. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a county vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the county, and no liability may be imputed to the county. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 8-4: A board of supervisors may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a township employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any township building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the township. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a township vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the township, and no liability may be imputed to the township. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: The governing body of a municipality may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a municipal employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any municipal building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the municipality. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a municipal vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the municipality, and no liability may be imputed to the municipality. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: Notwithstanding section 3 of this Act or § 9-19-20, a municipality may, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual from lawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, as defined in § 22-1-2, within a building or facility at which an event is occurring, provided metal detectors are utilized to screen for any dangerous weapons and armed security personnel are posted at each public entrance. Section 5. That § 23-7-70 be REPEALED.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified South Dakota officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s South Dakota candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
17 statements from 4 candidates
2026 South Dakota Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 5 statements
I support Special Education in our schools, but that’s not where that support should end. Accessibility is a lifelong need, and I will work with others in Congress to increase Medicaid funding for those who choose to live in their home with assistance, receive live-in caregiving, or live in assisted…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
I support Special Education in our schools, but that’s not where that support should end. Accessibility is a lifelong need, and I will work with others in Congress to increase Medicaid funding for those who choose to live in their home with assistance, receive live-in caregiving, or live in assisted living facilities.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Social Security and Medicare, two of the most successful programs in American history, are a promise that after a lifetime of hard work, regular people will not be left struggling in old age or when facing serious illness. Keeping these programs strong is a moral obligation and practical necessity f…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
Social Security and Medicare, two of the most successful programs in American history, are a promise that after a lifetime of hard work, regular people will not be left struggling in old age or when facing serious illness. Keeping these programs strong is a moral obligation and practical necessity for economic stability and the dignity of the millions counting on them. Career politicians have proposed privatizing Medicare and Social Security so Big Money can further profit off the backs of senior citizens. I won’t stand by while Big Money career politicians once again screw over the regular people who depend on these programs.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
The healthcare industry is effectively a monopoly. Big Money owns career politicians who keep the entire system rigged for maximum profit. Healthcare accounted for 27 percent of federal spending in fiscal year 2024, a percentage projected to rise dramatically if nothing changes. Compared to other we…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
The healthcare industry is effectively a monopoly. Big Money owns career politicians who keep the entire system rigged for maximum profit. Healthcare accounted for 27 percent of federal spending in fiscal year 2024, a percentage projected to rise dramatically if nothing changes. Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. spends far more per person on healthcare and pays 278 percent higher prescription drug prices. Indeed, since the adoption of the Affordable Care Act, the top 5 for-profit health insurance companies have collected 230 percent more profits while premiums skyrocketed. It’s no wonder medical debt causes over 50 percent of personal bankruptcies. By every measure, regular people are getting the shaft. Completely overhauling American healthcare is a complex challenge that we literally cannot afford to ignore any longer. A 5-stage effects-based process of reinventing our system will simultaneously reduce costs while improving the affordability and accessibility that everyday Americans deserve.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
South Dakota’s congressional delegation hasn’t included a military veteran for decades, and it shows. As the only veteran running for federal office in the state, I know that vets kept their promises to us during America’s longest war because I was there with them. I will ensure we keep our promises…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
South Dakota’s congressional delegation hasn’t included a military veteran for decades, and it shows. As the only veteran running for federal office in the state, I know that vets kept their promises to us during America’s longest war because I was there with them. I will ensure we keep our promises to them. Too many career politicians are trying to privatize Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare so Big Money can profit off the backs of our veterans. Only 27 percent of the VA’s 2022/23/24 healthcare budget was spent on direct VA-provided healthcare, while the rest went to private contractors. VA medical facilities are already facing severe staff shortages and must now deal with recently announced significant workforce reductions. Both issues are causing healthcare delays and access problems, along with a growing backlog and increased wait for claim processing. Intentionally shortchanging the VA so it will fail in its mission and can be privatized for profit is disgraceful. On my watch, Americans who served their country will not be abandoned at home just so Big Money can make an extra buck.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Affordable living is the foundation of a stable and productive society. If day-to-day requirements like housing, healthcare, food, and education are unaffordable, working families struggle and the American dream shrinks. That dream is already fading when 50 percent of Americans believe there is litt…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Affordable living is the foundation of a stable and productive society. If day-to-day requirements like housing, healthcare, food, and education are unaffordable, working families struggle and the American dream shrinks. That dream is already fading when 50 percent of Americans believe there is little chance young people will have better lives than their parents and 32 percent of regular people do not have any emergency savings. Affordability means people working full-time can live with dignity. Good policies like fair wages, targeted subsidies, and tax credits make a difference. The goal is to restructure our economic system so it delivers for regular people, too, not just Big Money that has engineered the status quo. Specifics are available here: https://substack.com/p/its-all-about-affordability
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Mike is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare for today’s seniors and future generations. He supports commonsense reforms to keep these programs solvent without cutting benefits, making sure they remain strong for years to come.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
Mike is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare for today’s seniors and future generations. He supports commonsense reforms to keep these programs solvent without cutting benefits, making sure they remain strong for years to come.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published South Dakota candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
South Dakota incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current South Dakota legislators and South Dakota’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from South Dakota’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
5 matching sponsorships or proposals · 4 South Dakota incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, repealing the requirement to provide expanded medicaid.
Jan 29, 2026 · Not enacted · House rejected passage
Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Rep. Bobbi Andera · Co-sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jana Hunt · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Kayser · Co-sponsored / Rep. Scott Moore · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kathy Rice · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tesa Schwans · Co-sponsored / Rep. John Sjaarda · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HJR 5002 proposed asking voters to repeal Article XXI, section 10, the constitutional Medicaid expansion requirement. The text proposed striking coverage for qualifying adults over 18 and under 65 at the specified income threshold. The House rejected passage on January 29, 2026. This resolution did not reach the ballot, repeal the constitutional provision, or establish that anyone lost Medicaid coverage.
The House rejected passage on 2026-01-29. The 2026 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The fact measures the uninsured share of residents under 65. The proposed repeal concerns the constitutional Medicaid coverage requirement for adults over 18 and under 65 who meet the income threshold. The resolution failed; it did not refer this repeal to voters, repeal coverage, or establish any loss of insurance. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, be submitted to the electors of the state for approval. Section 2. That Article XXI, § 10 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be REPEALED.
address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals.
Mar 24, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Sen. Mykala Voita · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Lauren Nelson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Al Novstrup · Co-sponsored / Rep. Marty Overweg · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1218 bars counties, townships and municipalities from restricting lawful possession of concealed firearms and compatible ammunition by their employees, officers and volunteers in their owned or leased buildings, facilities, vehicles and real property. The protection excludes inmates. It also excludes people other than law enforcement officers in secure detention areas, mental health crisis centers and substance-use residential treatment facilities, or using a government vehicle to transport someone apprehended under chapter 27A-10. Municipalities may restrict dangerous weapons inside event buildings or facilities when metal detectors screen for weapons and armed security is posted at every public entrance. Signed March 24, 2025, the law does not establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-03-24. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide and accidents. Rules for lawful concealed possession concern firearm access in specified public workplaces and facilities. The connection does not establish a direction or size of any mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 7-18: A board of county commissioners may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a county employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any county building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the county. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a county vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the county, and no liability may be imputed to the county. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 8-4: A board of supervisors may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a township employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any township building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the township. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a township vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the township, and no liability may be imputed to the township. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: The governing body of a municipality may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a municipal employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any municipal building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the municipality. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a municipal vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the municipality, and no liability may be imputed to the municipality. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: Notwithstanding section 3 of this Act or § 9-19-20, a municipality may, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual from lawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, as defined in § 22-1-2, within a building or facility at which an event is occurring, provided metal detectors are utilized to screen for any dangerous weapons and armed security personnel are posted at each public entrance. Section 5. That § 23-7-70 be REPEALED.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. John HughesSouth Dakota Legislature · HB 1274
prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor.
Mar 20, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Sen. Greg Blanc · Sponsored / Rep. John Hughes · Sponsored / Rep. John Sjaarda · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1274 prohibits knowingly dispensing, distributing, selling or advertising specified articles for an unlawful abortion under § 22-17-5.1. The referenced law retains the life-preservation exception based on appropriate and reasonable medical judgment. The new offense is a Class 6 felony; the attorney general may seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and injunctions. Signed March 20, 2026, this law cannot explain the 2025 abortion count.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-20. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions performed in South Dakota, including care for nonresidents. Restrictions on articles used for unlawful abortions concern access to abortion in the state; they do not establish how many abortions occurred. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Abortions performed in South Dakota. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That § 22-17-5.1 be AMENDED: 22-17-5.1. Any person who administers to any person or who prescribes or procures for any person any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: No person may knowingly dispense, distribute, sell, or advertise any of the following for purposes of an unlawful abortion pursuant to § 22-17-5.1: (1) An article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing an abortion; or (2) An article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing that is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing an abortion. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: The attorney general may recover a civil penalty against a person for violating section 2 of this Act. The amount of the civil penalty may not exceed ten thousand dollars for each violation. The clerk of court shall forward any civil penalty collected under this section to the state treasurer, for deposit in the life protection subfund, as established within the extraordinary litigation fund pursuant to § 1-33-8.11. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: If the attorney general has reason to believe that a person is engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in a violation of section 2 of this Act, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against the person to restrain the person by temporary or permanent injunction. An action under this section may be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the alleged violator resides or has a place of business, or in the circuit court for Hughes County, South Dakota. The court may issue a temporary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent any violation of section 2 of this Act. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Greg BlancSouth Dakota Legislature · HB 1274
prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor.
Mar 20, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Sen. Greg Blanc · Sponsored / Rep. John Hughes · Sponsored / Rep. John Sjaarda · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1274 prohibits knowingly dispensing, distributing, selling or advertising specified articles for an unlawful abortion under § 22-17-5.1. The referenced law retains the life-preservation exception based on appropriate and reasonable medical judgment. The new offense is a Class 6 felony; the attorney general may seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and injunctions. Signed March 20, 2026, this law cannot explain the 2025 abortion count.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-20. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions performed in South Dakota, including care for nonresidents. Restrictions on articles used for unlawful abortions concern access to abortion in the state; they do not establish how many abortions occurred. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Abortions performed in South Dakota. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That § 22-17-5.1 be AMENDED: 22-17-5.1. Any person who administers to any person or who prescribes or procures for any person any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: No person may knowingly dispense, distribute, sell, or advertise any of the following for purposes of an unlawful abortion pursuant to § 22-17-5.1: (1) An article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing an abortion; or (2) An article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing that is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing an abortion. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: The attorney general may recover a civil penalty against a person for violating section 2 of this Act. The amount of the civil penalty may not exceed ten thousand dollars for each violation. The clerk of court shall forward any civil penalty collected under this section to the state treasurer, for deposit in the life protection subfund, as established within the extraordinary litigation fund pursuant to § 1-33-8.11. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-17: If the attorney general has reason to believe that a person is engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in a violation of section 2 of this Act, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against the person to restrain the person by temporary or permanent injunction. An action under this section may be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the alleged violator resides or has a place of business, or in the circuit court for Hughes County, South Dakota. The court may issue a temporary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent any violation of section 2 of this Act. The attorney general may recover attorney fees, costs, and any other award the court determines is appropriate.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Mykala VoitaSouth Dakota Legislature · HB 1218
address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals.
Mar 24, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Sen. Mykala Voita · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Lauren Nelson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Al Novstrup · Co-sponsored / Rep. Marty Overweg · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1218 bars counties, townships and municipalities from restricting lawful possession of concealed firearms and compatible ammunition by their employees, officers and volunteers in their owned or leased buildings, facilities, vehicles and real property. The protection excludes inmates. It also excludes people other than law enforcement officers in secure detention areas, mental health crisis centers and substance-use residential treatment facilities, or using a government vehicle to transport someone apprehended under chapter 27A-10. Municipalities may restrict dangerous weapons inside event buildings or facilities when metal detectors screen for weapons and armed security is posted at every public entrance. Signed March 24, 2025, the law does not establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-03-24. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide and accidents. Rules for lawful concealed possession concern firearm access in specified public workplaces and facilities. The connection does not establish a direction or size of any mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 7-18: A board of county commissioners may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a county employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any county building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the county. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a county vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the county, and no liability may be imputed to the county. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 8-4: A board of supervisors may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a township employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any township building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the township. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a township vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the township, and no liability may be imputed to the township. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: The governing body of a municipality may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a municipal employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any municipal building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the municipality. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a municipal vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the municipality, and no liability may be imputed to the municipality. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: Notwithstanding section 3 of this Act or § 9-19-20, a municipality may, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual from lawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, as defined in § 22-1-2, within a building or facility at which an event is occurring, provided metal detectors are utilized to screen for any dangerous weapons and armed security personnel are posted at each public entrance. Section 5. That § 23-7-70 be REPEALED.
Only current South Dakota officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a South Dakota statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
South Dakota snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to South Dakota, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.