South Dakota · individual fact

South Dakota health

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.

Uninsured rate · all ages2024: 8.1%7.1%9.1%11.2%South Dakota, 2014: 9.8%South Dakota, 2015: 10.2%South Dakota, 2016: 8.7%South Dakota, 2017: 9.1%South Dakota, 2018: 9.8%South Dakota, 2019: 10.2%South Dakota, 2021: 9.5%South Dakota, 2022: 8.1%South Dakota, 2023: 8.3%South Dakota, 2024: 8.1%201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 21National context · Affordable Care Act signed · 2010-03-23ACA signedNational context · Supreme Court makes ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states · 2012-06-28Medicaid expansion rulingNational context · ACA Marketplace coverage and main Medicaid expansion begin · 2014-01-01ACA coverage beginsNational context · Opioid crisis declared a national public-health emergency · 2017-10-26Opioid emergencyNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Pandemic Medicaid continuous-enrollment condition enacted · 2020-03-18Medicaid coverage protectionNational context · FDA authorizes the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use · 2020-12-11First COVID vaccine EUANational context · American Rescue Plan expands Marketplace premium assistance · 2021-03-11Marketplace aid expandedNational context · No Surprises Act billing protections begin · 2022-01-01Surprise-billing protectionsNational context · Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey in Dobbs · 2022-06-24Dobbs abortion rulingNational context · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline launches nationwide · 2022-07-16988 crisis line launchesNational context · Inflation Reduction Act signed · 2022-08-16Prescription-drug lawNational context · Medicare Part D insulin cost-sharing cap takes effect · 2023-01-01Part D insulin $35 capNational context · Medicaid coverage terminations can resume · 2023-04-01Medicaid terminations resumeNational context · Federal COVID-19 public-health emergency ends · 2023-05-11COVID health emergency endsNational context · Medicare Part D out-of-pocket cap begins · 2025-01-01Part D $2,000 cap (2025)National context · 2025 reconciliation law changes Medicaid and funds rural care · 2025-07-04Medicaid and rural-care lawNational context · Rural Health Transformation awards announced for all 50 states · 2025-12-29Rural health awardsNational context · Temporary enhanced Marketplace premium tax credits end · 2026-01-01Enhanced ACA credits endNational context · First negotiated Medicare drug prices take effect · 2026-01-01Negotiated drug prices beginNational context · CMS issues Medicaid community-engagement implementation rule · 2026-06-01Medicaid eligibility rule● South Dakota Legislature · 3● U.S. Congress · South Dakota delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.■ South Dakota agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2010-03-012026-06-30

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
PeriodSouth DakotaRankU.S. benchmark
20248.1%#20 of 508.2%
20238.3%#19 of 50Not available
20228.1%#20 of 50Not available
20219.5%#15 of 50Not available
2020Not availableUnavailableNot available
201910.2%#13 of 50Not available
20189.8%#15 of 50Not available
20179.1%#16 of 50Not available
20168.7%#19 of 50Not available
201510.2%#18 of 50Not available
20149.8%#28 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

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
Uninsured rate · all ages history in South Dakota7.8%9.1%10.5%20142024
2024 · South Dakota: 8.1% · Rank #20 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
South Dakota Uninsured rate · all ages history
PeriodSouth DakotaCompare
20149.8%
201510.2%
20168.7%
20179.1%
20189.8%
201910.2%
2020Not available
20219.5%
20228.1%
20238.3%
20248.1%

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas16.7%—
#2Georgia12%—
#3Oklahoma11.5%—
#4Nevada11.4%—
#5Alaska11%—
#6Florida10.9%—
#7Arizona10.3%—
#7Wyoming10.3%—
#9New Mexico10.1%—
#10Mississippi9.7%—
#10Tennessee9.7%—
#12Arkansas9.4%—
#13Idaho9.2%—
#14South Carolina9%—
#15Montana8.8%—
#16North Carolina8.6%—
#17Kansas8.5%—
#18Utah8.3%—
#19Alabama8.2%—
#20South Dakota · your comparison8.1%—
#21Colorado7.9%—
#22Louisiana7.7%—
#22Missouri7.7%—
#22New Jersey7.7%—
#25Indiana7.5%—
#26Nebraska7.1%—
#27Delaware6.9%—
#27Illinois6.9%—
#27Virginia6.9%—
#30Kentucky6.8%—
#31Ohio6.7%—
#32Washington6.5%—
#33Maryland6.3%—
#34North Dakota6.1%—
#35California5.9%—
#36Connecticut5.8%—
#36Pennsylvania5.8%—
#36West Virginia5.8%—
#39Maine5.5%—
#40Iowa5.4%—
#41Wisconsin5.3%—
#42Oregon5.2%—
#43Michigan5.1%—
#43Minnesota5.1%—
#45New York5%—
#46Rhode Island4.6%—
#47New Hampshire4.5%—
#48Vermont4.2%—
#49Hawaii3.5%—
#50Massachusetts2.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

People under 65 without health insurance

9.8%2024 ACS annual estimate

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.
South Dakota · state comparison

Where do healthcare dollars go?

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
Personal healthcare spending per resident history in South Dakota$7.25K$10.22K$13.18K20142020
2020 · South Dakota: $12,495 · Rank #7 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
South Dakota Personal healthcare spending per resident history
PeriodSouth DakotaCompare
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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New York$14,007—
#2Alaska$13,642—
#3Massachusetts$13,319—
#4Delaware$12,899—
#5West Virginia$12,769—
#6Vermont$12,756—
#7South Dakota · your comparison$12,495—
#8Connecticut$12,489—
#9Maine$12,077—
#10New Jersey$11,868—
#11New Hampshire$11,793—
#12Rhode Island$11,694—
#13Pennsylvania$11,603—
#14North Dakota$11,301—
#15Wyoming$10,989—
#16Minnesota$10,846—
#17Maryland$10,839—
#18Indiana$10,517—
#19Louisiana$10,515—
#20Nebraska$10,514—
#21Ohio$10,478—
#22California$10,299—
#23Hawaii$10,291—
#24Kentucky$10,257—
#25Montana$10,212—
#26Illinois$10,190—
#27Oregon$10,071—
#28Wisconsin$9,982—
#29Missouri$9,921—
#30Michigan$9,897—
#31Florida$9,865—
#32Iowa$9,789—
#33Oklahoma$9,444—
#34Kansas$9,408—
#35Mississippi$9,394—
#36Arkansas$9,338—
#37Tennessee$9,336—
#38Alabama$9,280—
#39Washington$9,265—
#40Virginia$9,195—
#41North Carolina$8,917—
#42New Mexico$8,902—
#43South Carolina$8,766—
#44Georgia$8,758—
#45Arizona$8,756—
#46Colorado$8,583—
#47Texas$8,406—
#48Nevada$8,348—
#49Idaho$8,148—
#50Utah$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.

South Dakota · state comparison

Health outcomes

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
Life expectancy at birth history in South Dakota76.3 years77.8 years79.2 years20182022
2022 · South Dakota: 77.3 years · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
South Dakota Life expectancy at birth history
PeriodSouth DakotaCompare
201878.9 years
201978.4 years
202076.7 years
202176.6 years
202277.3 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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii80 years—
#2Massachusetts79.8 years—
#3New Jersey79.6 years—
#4New York79.5 years—
#5Connecticut79.4 years—
#6California79.3 years—
#6Minnesota79.3 years—
#8Rhode Island79.2 years—
#9Utah79 years—
#10New Hampshire78.7 years—
#11Colorado78.5 years—
#12Idaho78.4 years—
#12Washington78.4 years—
#14Nebraska78.3 years—
#14Vermont78.3 years—
#16Wisconsin78.1 years—
#17Florida77.9 years—
#17Iowa77.9 years—
#17North Dakota77.9 years—
#20Maryland77.8 years—
#21Oregon77.7 years—
#22Illinois77.5 years—
#22Virginia77.5 years—
#24Montana77.3 years—
#24Pennsylvania77.3 years—
#24South Dakota · your comparison77.3 years—
#27Texas77.1 years—
#28Michigan76.8 years—
#28Wyoming76.8 years—
#30Arizona76.7 years—
#31Maine76.6 years—
#32Delaware76.5 years—
#32Kansas76.5 years—
#34Nevada76.4 years—
#35Georgia75.9 years—
#35North Carolina75.9 years—
#37Alaska75.8 years—
#38Ohio75.6 years—
#39Indiana75.4 years—
#40Missouri75.2 years—
#41South Carolina75.1 years—
#42New Mexico74.5 years—
#43Arkansas73.9 years—
#44Alabama73.8 years—
#44Louisiana73.8 years—
#44Oklahoma73.8 years—
#44Tennessee73.8 years—
#48Kentucky73.6 years—
#49Mississippi72.6 years—
#50West Virginia72.2 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.

South Dakota · state comparison

Chronic illness and health risks

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
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history in South Dakota6.4%8.9%11.4%20192023
2023 · South Dakota: 10.7% · Rank #20 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
South Dakota Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
PeriodSouth DakotaCompare
20199.3%
20207%
20219.6%
20228.1%
202310.7%

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Mississippi15.1%95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1West Virginia15.1%95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3Louisiana14.6%95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4Alabama14%95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5Arkansas13.1%95% CI: 12–14.3
#6South Carolina12.7%95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6Tennessee12.7%95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8Texas12.1%95% CI: 11–13.3
#9Indiana11.7%95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10Georgia11.5%95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10Ohio11.5%95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12Oklahoma11.3%95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13Delaware11.1%95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14North Carolina11%95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15Illinois10.9%95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15Maryland10.9%95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15Michigan10.9%95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18Nevada10.8%95% CI: 8.9–13
#18New Mexico10.8%95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20Missouri10.7%95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20South Dakota · your comparison10.7%95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22California10.6%95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23Kansas10.5%95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24Virginia10.4%95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25Florida10.1%95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26Rhode Island10%95% CI: 9.1–11
#27Arizona9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27Iowa9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29Nebraska9.7%95% CI: 9–10.3
#30Wisconsin9.6%95% CI: 9–10.2
#31Hawaii9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31New York9.5%95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31Oregon9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34Wyoming9.4%95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35Minnesota9.3%95% CI: 8.6–10
#36New Jersey9.1%95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37Maine9%95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38North Dakota8.9%95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39Idaho8.7%95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40Washington8.6%95% CI: 8.2–9
#41Massachusetts8.5%95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42Connecticut8.4%95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43Alaska8.2%95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44Utah8.1%95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45Colorado8%95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46Montana7.9%95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46New Hampshire7.9%95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48Vermont7.8%95% CI: 7–8.7
—KentuckyNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—PennsylvaniaNot availableNo 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.

South Dakota · state comparison

Where are healthcare workers in short supply?

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Jersey83.2%—
#2Vermont82.6%—
#3South Carolina79.4%—
#4New Hampshire74.8%—
#5Rhode Island74.3%—
#6Louisiana72.1%—
#7Hawaii67.1%—
#8Utah65.4%—
#9Wisconsin65.2%—
#10Alabama63%—
#11Connecticut60.3%—
#12Massachusetts58%—
#13Tennessee58%—
#14Virginia57.2%—
#15Pennsylvania56.7%—
#16Maine56%—
#17Minnesota55.4%—
#18Wyoming54.4%—
#19Indiana54.2%—
#20California53.2%—
#21Arkansas52.6%—
#22Texas49.8%—
#23Ohio49.7%—
#24Nebraska49.1%—
#25Alaska48.9%—
#26North Carolina48.1%—
#27Colorado47.5%—
#28Michigan44.9%—
#29Oregon43.9%—
#30Idaho43.9%—
#31Washington42.4%—
#32Illinois41.5%—
#33Nevada41.5%—
#34Arizona41.2%—
#35Kansas41.1%—
#36Iowa40.5%—
#37Florida39.7%—
#38Georgia39.1%—
#39Montana38.5%—
#40West Virginia38.3%—
#41North Dakota36.5%—
#42New York35.3%—
#43South Dakota · your comparison34.6%—
#44Mississippi34.1%—
#45Maryland31.6%—
#46New Mexico31.4%—
#47Kentucky30.8%—
#48Oklahoma28.6%—
#49Missouri23.7%—
#50Delaware11.2%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

South Dakota · state comparison

Employer coverage costs

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Alaska$8,635—
#2New York$8,177—
#3New Hampshire$7,991—
#4Vermont$7,868—
#5Wyoming$7,743—
#6Nebraska$7,611—
#7South Carolina$7,516—
#8Connecticut$7,501—
#9Maine$7,496—
#10Massachusetts$7,452—
#11Washington$7,440—
#12New Mexico$7,424—
#13Illinois$7,376—
#14New Jersey$7,373—
#15Maryland$7,352—
#16Rhode Island$7,326—
#17Indiana$7,319—
#18Delaware$7,280—
#19Wisconsin$7,250—
#20Pennsylvania$7,246—
#21North Dakota$7,216—
#22Colorado$7,206—
#23Missouri$7,179—
#24California$7,173—
#25Florida$7,078—
#26South Dakota · your comparison$7,070—
#27Oklahoma$7,058—
#28Hawaii$7,040—
#29North Carolina$7,036—
#30Texas$7,017—
#31West Virginia$6,993—
#32Ohio$6,989—
#33Kentucky$6,949—
#34Iowa$6,932—
#35Virginia$6,928—
#36Oregon$6,917—
#37Minnesota$6,910—
#38Georgia$6,876—
#39Montana$6,860—
#40Idaho$6,744—
#41Louisiana$6,713—
#42Michigan$6,683—
#43Kansas$6,675—
#44Arizona$6,612—
#45Utah$6,593—
#46Mississippi$6,561—
#47Nevada$6,493—
#48Tennessee$6,485—
#49Arkansas$6,414—
#50Alabama$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.

South Dakota · state comparison

Mental health and treatment

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Oregon31.6%—
#2Vermont29.1%—
#3West Virginia28.1%—
#4Washington27.9%—
#5New Hampshire27.7%—
#6Tennessee27%—
#7Utah26.7%—
#8Maine26.7%—
#9Arkansas26.6%—
#10Colorado26.4%—
#11Rhode Island25.8%—
#12Missouri25.7%—
#13Montana25.6%—
#14Indiana25.3%—
#15Kentucky25.3%—
#16Georgia25.2%—
#17Iowa25%—
#18Massachusetts24.9%—
#19Wyoming24.7%—
#20Nevada24.6%—
#21Arizona24.6%—
#22Wisconsin24.6%—
#23Idaho24.5%—
#24Nebraska24.1%—
#25Louisiana24.1%—
#26Alaska24%—
#27Pennsylvania23.9%—
#28New Mexico23.9%—
#28Ohio23.9%—
#30Connecticut23.7%—
#31Kansas23.7%—
#32Michigan23.6%—
#33Virginia23.1%—
#34Alabama23%—
#35North Dakota23%—
#36Maryland22.7%—
#37Oklahoma22.6%—
#38Minnesota22.6%—
#39Illinois22.2%—
#40Delaware22.1%—
#41New York21.9%—
#42South Dakota · your comparison21.8%—
#43California21.6%—
#44North Carolina21.4%—
#45Florida20.8%—
#46Texas20.7%—
#47Mississippi20.5%—
#48Hawaii19.8%—
#49South Carolina19.8%—
#50New Jersey18.1%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

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

Dan Ahlers

5 statements

Democratic · Governor and Lieutenant Governor · SD

Care & public health

Keep rural healthcare accessible and invest heavily in public education to keep more of our bright minds in-state.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Keep rural healthcare accessible and invest heavily in public education to keep more of our bright minds in-state.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Ahlers — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 4 more statements from Dan Ahlers
Care & public health

Every South Dakotan deserves access to affordable, quality healthcare, regardless of where they live.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Every South Dakotan deserves access to affordable, quality healthcare, regardless of where they live.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Ahlers — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Fight to keep rural hospitals open and long-term care facilities thriving.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Fight to keep rural hospitals open and long-term care facilities thriving.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Ahlers — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Expand access to mental health services across the state.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Expand access to mental health services across the state.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Ahlers — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Address crucial workforce shortages straining our healthcare system.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Address crucial workforce shortages straining our healthcare system.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Ahlers — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 South Dakota U.S. House — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 6 statements

Democratic · U.S. House · SD

Health coverage

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

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 5 more statements from Nicole "Nikki" Gronli
Health coverage

Funding nursing homes in the state through Medicare expansion and restoring Medicaid tax credits.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Funding nursing homes in the state through Medicare expansion and restoring Medicaid tax credits.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Improve access to health care in tribal communities, including mental health services, substance-use treatment, and other critical health resources.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Tribal nations and Native priorities

Candidate campaign source

Improve access to health care in tribal communities, including mental health services, substance-use treatment, and other critical health resources.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Investing in maternal health programs and improving access to prenatal, postpartum, and maternity care, especially in rural communities.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Investing in maternal health programs and improving access to prenatal, postpartum, and maternity care, especially in rural communities.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Reducing the cost pressures that make it harder for families to get ahead, including housing, child care, health care, and energy costs.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, environment, public lands, and utilities

Candidate campaign source

Reducing the cost pressures that make it harder for families to get ahead, including housing, child care, health care, and energy costs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Stay in contact with mental health professionals across South Dakota to address patterns and concerns they see every day.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Stay in contact with mental health professionals across South Dakota to address patterns and concerns they see every day.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 South Dakota U.S. Senate — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 6 statements

Brian L. Bengs

4 statements

Independent · U.S. Senate · SD

Health coverage

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

Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 3 more statements from Brian L. Bengs
Health coverage

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

Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

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

Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

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

Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Mike Rounds

2 statements

Republican · U.S. Senate · SD

Health coverage

Social Security and Medicare

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: On the Issues

Candidate campaign source

Social Security and Medicare

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mike Rounds — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Mike Rounds
Health coverage

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

Mike Rounds — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
How statements are selected

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.

Rep. Aaron Aylward

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Aaron Aylward
South 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
South 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. John Hughes

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. John Hughes
South 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Greg Blanc

South Dakota Senate · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Greg Blanc
South 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Mykala Voita

South Dakota Senate · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Mykala Voita
South 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

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.