The Supreme Court has issued a long-awaited ruling in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, confirming the constitutionality of the valuable care bill, requiring insurers to cover certain prevention services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost-sharing. This includes cancer screening, pregnancy care and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
Several Texas residents and two Christian brothers’ businesses have sued the government for their belief that the provision violates the appointment clause that requires U.S. officials to be appointed only by the president on the Senate’s advice and consent. Members of the USPSTF were not nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. They also believe that covering benefits such as prevention and prevention for HIV prevention (PREP) violates their religious beliefs and violates the Religious Free Restoration Act (RFRA).
The Supreme Court said in a 6-3 ruling written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh that the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force is an inferior official and does not require Senate approval, so their appointments are constitutional under the terms of the appointment. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has the authority to appoint and fire the task force and review and block their recommendations. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch objected.
Regarding religious claims, the District Court ruled to support Bradwood. The Supreme Court noted that the government did not appeal this part of the district court’s judgment, so the issue of religion still exists in the district court.
He added: “The court handles religious freedom claims signals that employers with sincere religious objections may still seek to exempt certain coverage authorizations under the RFRA. Procedures conducted in district courts on this issue may affect the scope of religious accommodation provided under federal health care laws.”
If the Supreme Court makes a different ruling on the terms of appointment, the government’s ability to require insurance companies and employers to cover preventive services without cost sharing could be severely limited.
Executives of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network appreciated it.
“In a key ruling, by ensuring affordable evidence-based cancer screening and prevention services to help alleviate the cancer burden nationwide, we are pleased today that the Supreme Court insists on providing the Affordable Care Act, which requires most private insurers to cover many preventive health care services that aid lifeguards without any cost, can prove that any reliable cargo can be enjoyed by a higher cargo, which can make old diseases more likely to cause cancer, which can cause cancer, and that is, the growing number of cancers, which can cause cancer. Lacasse, president of the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society, said in the statement.
Family USA, a healthcare consumer advocacy group in the United States, said the decision provided some security to more than 170 million Americans by retaining access to preventive services without cost sharing.
Even so, that’s still a cause for concern, said Anthony Wright, executive director of American Family.
“While this is a fundamental victory for patients, patients have reason to worry that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary (including our current secretary) to control the membership and recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to decide which preventive services are covered,” Wright said in a statement. “We must be vigilant to ensure that Secretary Kennedy does not cancel reports of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent qualifying health experts on the CDC’s Independent Vaccine Advisory Committee and replacing them as his personal allies.”
Another health care expert pointed out that “the meaning of the case cannot be exaggerated.” However, this does not mark the last chapter.
“The decision does not address the deeper legal and political uncertainty surrounding health care access,” said Greg Fosheim, partner at McDermott Will & Emery. “Bradwood must be read in conjunction with the latest court’s ruling in the U.S. v. SKRMETTI, which limits federal protections for access to gender-affirming care. Combined together, these rulings emphasize the vulnerability of many forms of fundamental, compassionate and evidence-based health care, and how fragile those rulings remain when they intersect with controversial social or religious issues.”
Fosheim stressed that in Bradwood, the court opened up the possibility of religious freedom such as PREP for future exemptions in service based on religious freedom. “Even if the structural elements of ACA are maintained, in practice, the scope of integrated care can still be narrowed down,” he said.
Photo: FSTOP123, Getty Images
