A team of health policy researchers argues that one key element of the nation’s public health infrastructure is at risk from ongoing litigation over testing issues. Write in the Frontline Opinions section health problems online December 23, Article titled Andrew Twinamatsiko, Zachary Baron, Sheela Ranganathan “The fate of ACA preventive services remains uncertain before the Supreme Court.” We will explain the background, current situation, and outlook. Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra The case appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for judgment.
of blade wood The case has received little coverage in mainstream media, but the stakes are high. “On September 19, 2024, the Biden Administration asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra, which blocked free access to more than 50 preventive health services. “We have filed a motion for certiorari,” the article’s authors wrote. . The government has confirmed that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (the “Task Force”), a nationally recognized group of experts that recommends services that virtually all private insurance companies must cover for free, The Supreme Court is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether it is constitutional. The other party to the lawsuit (the objector) is also dissatisfied with part of the first instance judgment and is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the case. We cover all the preventive services you need at no cost to you. (emphasis added). They blame lower courts for ruling that Congress properly delegated authority to various agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). We recommend evidence-based services that insurance companies must cover. ”
In fact, they write: The requirement that certain preventive services be covered without cost sharing is one of the most common provisions of the ACA. This will give more than 150 million people access to free preventive care, improve overall health and minimize disparities in access to care, especially among marginalized populations. It was suppressed. Repealing this requirement would rewind health care back to the pre-ACA era, when affordability barriers made it difficult for many Americans to access preventive services. We have covered the background to this case and various developments in the case in various Health Affairs Forefront articles. This article summarizes the government’s reasons for asking the Supreme Court to intervene and the challengers’ nondelegation arguments. ”
They further state that “the ACA requires virtually all insurance companies to provide a variety of preventive services free of charge, including lung cancer screening, mammography, cholesterol treatment, vaccinations, smoking cessation, and many other services. ” points out. These interventions can help detect and treat conditions before they worsen, resulting in improved health outcomes and lower healthcare costs. The ACA does not specify in detail which preventive services are covered. Rather, it delegates that task to a task force of federal experts at HHS, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ”
This legal dispute hinges on the question of whether the members of the task force are “principal officers” or “subordinate officers.” This distinction is important because the plaintiffs’ legal argument is based on the claim that members of the special committee are “principal officers” whose appointments must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, the Biden administration claims they were “inferior officials” and did not require Senate confirmation. If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that task force members are “principal officers” would stand, and the task force would be ruled unconstitutional.
The Fundamental Substantive Issue, written by Richard Hughes IV in a Forefront article on June 24, 2024 “Braidwood v. Becerra: Threat to Preventive Services Gets Worse.” The Braidwood plaintiffs allege the “abortion pill,” PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) to prevent HIV infection, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and screening and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted diseases and drug use. They believe that such interventions “encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and extramarital sex between men and women.” ”
As Hughes pointed out in June, plaintiffs’ legal strategy is twofold: (1) argue that the law burdens their religious practices and force the government to justify it; attacks the role of the recommending agency given by the ACA as unconstitutional. “Hard” judicial review. ”
Back to December 23 article: Twinamatsiko, Baron and Ranganathan say: The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case. If the Supreme Court decides to do so, full arguments will then be held, with oral arguments likely scheduled for early next year. However, the outcome of recent elections could have a significant impact on how preventive services requirements are defended before the Supreme Court. Jonathan Mitchell, the challenger’s attorney, also said: [Donald] Trump’s lawyer. The Trump administration refused to defend the ACA the last time it was brought before the Supreme Court. The same scenario could well be repeated under another Trump administration, in which case the government’s petition to the Supreme Court could be withdrawn, giving the high court an opportunity to simply remove the case from the docket. be. ”
And, they added, “the case will then resume before Judge O’Connor, whom the Fifth Circuit has asked to determine whether the HHS Secretary properly approved the ACIP and HRSA recommendations.” added. The new Trump administration, with HHS led by RFK Jr., appears interested in overhauling the broader public health infrastructure, but could also explore other avenues to restrict access to vaccines and other treatments. Yes, and that could lead to other legal challenges. ”
Andrew Twinamatsiko, J.D., is associate director of the Health Policy and Law Initiative at the O’Neill National Institute for Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He provides technical assistance to policymakers and public education on legal issues in health care policy, primarily focusing on health insurance access, affordability, transparency, and equity. Dr. Zachary Barron is director of the Health Policy and Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute. Sheela Ranganathan is a collaborator with the Health Policy and Law Initiative.
