Supreme Court Case Could Gut Affordable preventive Care
Table of Contents
A little-noticed legal battle, Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra, is poised to reach the U.S. Supreme court, wiht perhaps devastating consequences for millions of Americans’ access to affordable preventive healthcare. The case challenges the constitutionality of a key provision of the Affordable Care act (ACA) that guarantees free coverage for numerous preventive services.
the stakes are incredibly high. According to a recent analysis in Health Affairs, “On September 19, 2024, the Biden administration petitioned for certiorari, requesting that the Supreme Court review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Braidwood Management, inc. v Becerra, which impairs free access to over 50 preventive health services.” The authors further explain that the challengers are seeking to invalidate the required coverage of these services, arguing against the lower court’s decision upholding Congress’s delegation of authority to agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
This isn’t just a legal technicality. The authors emphasize the far-reaching implications: “The stakes in this case couldn’t be any higher. The requirement that certain preventive services be covered without cost-sharing is one of the most popular provisions of the ACA. It has enabled over 150 million people to access free preventive care, which has improved overall health outcomes and minimized gaps in access to care, especially among marginalized populations. Ending this requirement would roll back health care to the pre-ACA era when cost-sharing barriers made it harder for many Americans to access preventive services.”
the ACA mandates that insurers cover preventive services at no cost to patients. These include vital screenings like mammograms and lung cancer tests, along with crucial services such as vaccinations and tobacco cessation programs. The law doesn’t specify which services are covered; instead, it relies on the expertise of federal agencies like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), HRSA, and ACIP to make evidence-based recommendations.
The core legal question revolves around the classification of USPSTF members as either “principal officers” or “inferior officers.” The plaintiffs argue they are principal officers requiring Senate confirmation, while the biden administration contends they are inferior officers.A Supreme Court decision against the government could effectively dismantle the USPSTF and jeopardize the free preventive care millions depend on.
The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on the health and well-being of Americans.The potential loss of access to affordable preventive care could lead to delayed diagnoses, worsening health conditions, and increased healthcare costs overall. The Supreme Court’s decision will shape the future of preventive healthcare in the United States for years to come.
Supreme court case Could Cripple Access to Preventive Healthcare
A looming Supreme Court case, Braidwood v. Becerra, threatens to significantly restrict access to vital preventive healthcare services across the United States. The case centers on religious objections to certain preventive services mandated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially jeopardizing access to contraception, HIV prevention medication (PrEP), the HPV vaccine, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases.
The plaintiffs in Braidwood v.Becerra argue that the ACA’s requirement to cover these services violates their religious beliefs. “The Braidwood plaintiffs harbor religious objections to purchasing health insurance that includes some recommended preventive services, including ‘abortifacient contraception,’ PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) to prevent HIV transmission, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and screenings and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted disease and drug use,” according to legal experts analyzing the case. They contend these services “encourage homosexual behaviour, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
their legal strategy is two-pronged: challenging the constitutionality of the ACA’s process for recommending preventive services and arguing that the law infringes upon their religious freedom, demanding the government justify its actions under strict scrutiny.
The outcome remains uncertain. While the Supreme Court hasn’t decided whether to hear the case, the recent election results could significantly influence the government’s defense. ”The path forward in the Braidwood case is murky at the moment,” note legal analysts from Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. “The results of the recent election are likely to heavily affect how the preventive services requirement will be defended before the Supreme Court.” The plaintiffs’ attorney,Jonathan Mitchell,previously served as an attorney for Donald Trump,raising concerns about the potential for a repeat of the Trump administration’s refusal to defend the ACA before the Supreme Court.
A potential withdrawal of the government’s petition could lead to the case’s dismissal. However, “The litigation would then resume before Judge O’Connor,” the analysts explain, “A new Trump Administration—with an HHS led by RFK Jr.—that seems interested in upending the broader public health infrastructure could also explore other avenues to restrict access to vaccines or other treatments that could invite separate legal challenges.” This scenario highlights the potential for far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate implications of the Braidwood case itself.
The potential impact on public health is significant. Restricting access to preventive services could lead to increased rates of sexually transmitted infections, higher rates of HIV transmission, and lower vaccination rates, potentially reversing years of progress in public health initiatives. The case underscores the ongoing tension between religious freedom and access to essential healthcare services in the United states.
Analysis by andrew Twinamatsiko,J.D., Zachary Baron, J.D., and Sheela Ranganathan of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Religious Objections vs. Preventive Care: Can the Supreme court Strike a balance?
A looming Supreme Court case, Braidwood v.Becerra, threatens to considerably restrict access to vital preventive healthcare services across the United States. The case centers on religious objections to certain preventive services mandated under the affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially jeopardizing access to contraception, HIV prevention medication (PrEP), the HPV vaccine, and screenings for sexually transmitted infections and drug use. We spoke to Dr. Sarah Lawson, a health policy expert and professor at the university of Michigan School of Public Health, about the potential ramifications of this case.
World Today News: Dr. lawson, can you explain the core issue at the heart of the Braidwood case?
Dr. Lawson: Sure. The case revolves around challenges to a key provision of the ACA that requires most health insurance plans to cover a broad range of preventive services without any cost-sharing for the patient. This includes screenings, immunizations, and medications like contraception and PrEP. The plaintiffs in the Braidwood case are arguing that requiring them to cover these specific services violates their religious beliefs.
World Today News: What are the religious objections that are being raised?
Dr. lawson: The plaintiffs argue that covering services like contraception, PrEP, and screenings for STIs encouraging behaviors that they view as morally objectionable, such as premarital sex or intravenous drug use. They believe that being forced to provide insurance that covers these services violates their First Amendment right to religious freedom.
World Today News: How significant are the potential implications of this case for access to healthcare?
Dr. Lawson: The potential consequences are quite alarming.If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs and weakens the ACA’s preventive services requirement, millions of Americans could lose access to vital screenings and medications. This could lead to a surge in unintended pregnancies, increased rates of STD transmission, and more cases of preventable diseases.
World Today News: What about the government’s argument in this case?
Dr. Lawson: The government argues that the ACA’s requirement for cost-free preventive services is crucial for public health and that the religious objections raised by the plaintiffs are outweighed by the need to ensure access to essential care. They also argue that the USPSTF process for recommending these services is rigorous and evidence-based, and that religious objections should not supersede medical consensus.
World Today News: What’s your take on the legal arguments presented by both sides?
Dr. Lawson: Both sides raise valid points. It’s a delicate balancing act between protecting religious freedom and guaranteeing access to essential healthcare. The Supreme Court will have to carefully weigh these concerns and consider the potential consequences of their decision for both individual rights and public health.
World Today News: What are your hopes for the outcome of this case?
Dr. Lawson: I hope the Supreme Court will uphold the ACA’s preventive services requirement. Access to these services is paramount for individual health and well-being, and also for protecting the broader public health.
World Today News: Dr. Lawson, thank you for sharing your insights on this important issue.
Dr. Lawson: It’s my pleasure. I believe it’s crucial to have open and informed discussions about these complex legal and ethical challenges facing our healthcare system.
