The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key Affordable Care Act requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventative measures recommended by an expert panel.
Justices upheld the constitutionality of the provision in a 6-3 decision and protected access to preventative care for about 150 million Americans.
The justices found that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint and fire members of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The cases started when a small business in Texas and some individuals filed a lawsuit against the panel’s recommendation that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service.
They argued that covering PreP went against their religious beliefs and would “encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
The plaintiffs further argued that the USPSTF mandates are unconstitutional because panel members are “inferior officers” who are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
While the panel is independent, they said that since their decisions impact millions of people members should be confirmed.
A U.S. district judge in 2023 ruled that all preventative-care coverage imposed since the ACA was signed into law areinvalid and a federal appeals court judge ruled in agreement last year.
The Biden administration appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration chose to defend the law despite its long history of disparaging Obamacare.
Though public health groups celebrated the ruling Friday, some noted another potential outcome.
“While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.
“We must be vigilant to ensure Secretary Kennedy does not undo coverage of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent firing of qualified health experts from the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with his personal allies.”
Last Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans overturned a district court ruling that had nullified a requirement in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that private insurers cover certain preventive care services without patient cost-sharing, although a nationwide injunction had kept the mandate in place while the case was appealed.
In a decision that the judges themselves described as a “mixed bag,” the circuit court ruled that the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lacked constitutional authority to issue legally binding recommendations, as its expert volunteer members are not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
However, only the plaintiffs—two companies in Texas that argued covering contraceptives, HPV vaccinations, and HIV prevention medicines violated their religious beliefs—have been granted relief to disregard USPSTF recommendations, and all other companies must remain in compliance. The circuit court also declined to rule on the legality of ACA coverage recommendations for contraceptives and vaccines, which are issued by other advisory groups than the USPSTF, instead returning these matters to the original district court.
The Gist: Although this decision leaves the door open for further rulings and legal challenges, providers and patients can celebrate that preventive care services remain free of cost-sharing, for now.
The preventive care mandate is one of the ACA’s most popular provisions, and overturning it would be highly disruptive and harmful to patient health, especially given about half of US adults say it’s difficult to afford healthcare costs.
This ruling also suggests that a permanent resolution to legal questions surrounding the USPSTF’s authority may require Congressional action.
Six individuals and the owners of two small businesses sued the federal government, arguing that the ACA provision “makes it impossible” for them to purchase health insurance for themselves or their employees that excludes free preventive care. The plaintiffs argue that they do not want or need such care. They specifically name the medication PrEP (used to prevent the spread of HIV), contraception, the HPV vaccine, and screening and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted diseases and substance use; however, they seek to invalidate the entire ACA preventive benefit package.
A federal trial court judge agreed with some of their claims and invalidated free coverage of more than 50 services, including lung, breast, and colon cancer screenings and statins to prevent heart disease.
This ruling, which is currently being appealed, strips free preventive services coverage from more than 150 million privately insured people and approximately 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries who are covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.
This suit was first filed in 2020. The plaintiffs in the case, Braidwood Management v. Becerra, continue to oppose the entire preventive benefit package, which consists of four service bundles: services rated “A” or “B” by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); routine immunizations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); evidence-informed services for children recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and evidence-informed women’s health care recommended by HRSA. The trial judge invalidated all benefits recommended by the USPSTF after March 23, 2010, the date the ACA became law. (The court also exempted the plaintiffs on religious grounds from their obligation to cover PrEP.) The Fifth Circuit put the trial court’s decision on temporary hold while the case is on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, will hear the Biden administration’s appeal of the trial court’s USPSTF ruling and the entirety of the plaintiffs’ original challenge, thereby putting all four coverage guarantees in play. The court also will hear whether the ruling should apply only to the plaintiffs or to all Americans.
The trial court held that the USPSTF lacks the legal status necessary under the Constitution to make binding coverage decisions, and that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — who can make such binding decisions — lacks the power to rectify matters by formally adopting USPSTF recommendations. The judge concluded that federal law fails to require that members be presidential nominees confirmed by the Senate under the Appointments Clause; in the judge’s view, this means that members are not politically accountable for their decisions, which is constitutionally problematic. The judge also ruled that federal law makes the USPSTF the final coverage arbiter, which means that the HHS Secretary, who is nominated and confirmed under the Appointments Clause and thus politically accountable, cannot cure the constitutional problem by ratifying USPSTF recommendations.
On appeal, the Biden administration argues that the USPSTF passes constitutional muster because the HHS Secretary, who oversees the Task Force, is a nominated and confirmed constitutional officer. Alternatively, the administration argues the appeals court should interpret the statute as allowing the HHS Secretary to ratify USPSTF recommendations, since the law specifies that USPSTF members are independent of political pressure only “to the extent practicable.” The administration makes similar arguments on behalf of ACIP and HRSA.
The plaintiffs argue that secretarial ratification cannot cure the constitutional problems with all three advisory bodies. According to the plaintiffs, none of the advisory bodies has the status of constitutional officers demanded by the Appointments Clause, and so their recommendations must remain recommendations only, unenforceable by HHS on insurers, health plans, and state Medicaid programs.
The second issue is the scope of the remedy if the law is found unconstitutional. The trial court did not limit its holding to the four individual plaintiffs and two companies who sued, but instead applied its order nationwide. The Biden administration argues that, if the coverage guarantee is unconstitutional, the court only should prohibit HHS from enforcing the preventive services provision against the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit and should allow the coverage guarantee to remain in force for the rest of the country. Citing an amicus brief filed by the American Public Health Association and public health deans and scholars, the administration argues that barring HHS from enforcing the preventive services requirement nationwide “pose[s] a grave threat to the public health” by decreasing Americans’ access to lifesaving preventive services. The plaintiffs argue that a nationwide prohibition is necessary, the broader public interest in free preventive coverage is irrelevant, and insurers will voluntarily continue to offer free preventive coverage if people want it.
The administration’s arguments on appeal have attracted amicus briefs by bipartisan economic scholars, organizations concerned with health equity and preventive health, health care organizations, and 23 states.
Crucially, the economists point out that, prior to the ACA, comprehensive free preventive coverage was extremely limited because it is not in insurers’ interest to make a long-term economic investment in members’ health. Indeed, prior to the ACA, insurers did not even uniformly cover the basic screenings for newborns to detect treatable illnesses and conditions.
Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs have been filed by Texas and an organization dedicated to “protecting individual liberties . . . against government overreach.” All briefing will be complete by November 3, 2023, with oral argument thereafter. A decision is likely in early to mid-2024. Whatever the outcome, expect a Supreme Court appeal given the size of the stakes in the case.
On Tuesday, the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), which is appointed by an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services, finalized guidance that all adults ages 19 to 64 should be routinely screened for anxiety, even in the absence of symptoms. Last fall, USPSTF proposed a draft version of this guidance, and also finalized its recommendation that children and adolescents ages 8-18 be screened for anxiety. The task force found that anxiety screening for seniors, as well as suicide-risk screening for all adults, lacked conclusive evidence of effectiveness.
The Gist: Policymakers and providers are right to respond to the nationwide increase in anxiety and depression brought on by the pandemic, and regular screenings will help quantify the scope of a problem we face.
However, given the pervasive undersupply of behavioral health practitioners, widespread screenings will only lead to better care if access to treatment can be scaled.
Solutions that take advantage of telemedicine’s success in behavioral health, combined with the tools—and time—to manage mild anxiety in the primary care setting, are critical to provide support for a coming wave of newly identified patients.
Published this week in the New York Times, this article describes the decaying state of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, a 117 year-old facility in the Mississippi Delta that may be within months of closure. While rural hospitals across the country are struggling, Mississippi’s firm opposition to Medicaid expansion has exacerbated the problem in that state, by depriving providers of an additional $1.4B per year in federal funds. Instead, only a few of the state’s 100-plus hospitals actually turn an annual profit, and uncompensated care costs are almost 10 percent of the average hospital’s operating costs.
Despite a dozen or more hospitals at imminent risk of closure, Mississippi officials would rather use the state’s $3.9B budget surplus to lower or eliminate the state income tax.
The Gist:Expanding Medicaid doesn’t just reduce rates of uncompensated care provided by hospitals, it changes the volume and type of care they provide.
Further, Medicaid expansion has been found to result in significant reductions in all-cause mortality.
Ensuring that low-income residents in Mississippi and other non-expansion states have access to Medicaid would allow providers to administer more preventive care and manage chronic diseases more effectively, before costly exacerbations require hospitalization.
US District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled on Thursday that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) requirement for most insurers to cover certain preventative care services without cost-sharing is unlawful. Judge O’Connor—who invalidated the entire ACA in 2018, before the Supreme Court reversed that ruling—had already sided with the plaintiffs in Braidwood vs. Becerra last September, on the grounds that mandatory coverage of HIV prevention treatment, also known as PrEP therapy, violated their religious beliefs. His latest ruling applies to the ACA-mandated preventive services that are compelled by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), on the grounds of the task force’s makeup and the fact that some of its recommendations predate the ACA. Services covered for no cost today include screening tests for a variety of cancers, sexually transmitted infections, and diabetes. The ruling does not impact other ACA preventative care services, like contraceptive services and children’s immunizations, as they are based on the recommendations of other government advisory groups. The immediate impact of this week’s ruling is unclear, as the Biden administration has already filed an appeal and may seek to stay the ruling, while most insurance contracts are set on an annual basis.
The Gist: Given the reasoning laid out in Judge O’Connor’s Braidwood v. Becerra ruling last fall, this decision was expected. As with previous attempts to repeal the ACA that have come through his district, the ultimate fate of the ACA’s cost-free preventative care services will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court. It’s possible that the Court may find the narrow targeting of this case more reasonable, making no-cost preventive care coverage optional for employers.
If that happens, millions of Americans could again have to pay for some of the most common and highest-value healthcare services. That additional financial burden, along with tightening of health plan benefit designs, could create barriers to access and exacerbate health disparities.
The plaintiffs in Braidwood v. Becerra filed a motion on Monday asking a US District Court judge in Texas—the same judge who ruled the entire ACA unconstitutional in 2018—to block enforcement of the ACA’s no-cost requirement for preventive care services. This judge already sided with the plaintiffs in September, ruling the government cannot require a company to fully cover preventive HIV drugs, also known as PrEP therapy, for its employees, on the grounds that doing so violates owners’ religious freedom.
In that ruling, the judge also asserted that the government’s system for deciding what preventive care services should be covered under the ACA is unconstitutional. This latest motion now asks him to invalidate all parts of the ACA requiring preventive health services on the grounds that the Preventive Services Task Force was never appointed by Congress, and thus lacks the authority to say which services insurers must cover. The final ruling is expected early next year, after which the case will certainly be appealed, regardless of outcome.
The Gist: Given the judge’s initial ruling in Braidwood last month, this motion from the plaintiffs was expected. While the US Supreme Court reversed a 2018 ruling by this judge that struck down the entire ACA, it could potentially find the narrow targeting of this case more reasonable, making preventive care coverage optional for employers.
If that happens, millions of Americans would once again have to pay for some of the most common and highest-value healthcare services, including screening tests for a variety of cancers, sexually transmitted infections, and diabetes. That additional financial burden, along with likely tightening of health plan benefit designs, would create barriers to access and exacerbate health disparities.
In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study of 85K Europeans, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, colonoscopies were found to reduce incidence of colorectal cancer by only 18 percent—much less than earlier large studies—and have no impact on ten-year colorectal cancer mortality rates. This is the first study to directly compare individuals invited to receive colonoscopies with a control group receiving no cancer screening.
While the study’s findings surprised many researchers, an important caveat to the headline takeaways is that a secondary analysis of study participants who actually completed their colonoscopies found a 50 percent reduction in death, though the decision to accept the invitation likely correlates with other factors that improve mortality outcomes.
The Gist: We were surprised to learn this was the first RCT to assess the effectiveness of colonoscopies—15M of which are performed in the US each year—and which comprise a $36B market. While the study’s results need careful interpretation, it reminds us that much of established medical consensus has yet to be “proven” by rigorous scientific research.
While we don’t expect this study’s results to significantly change colonoscopy recommendations, it does place greater emphasis on the question of value generated by widespread preventative screenings. Colonoscopy will almost certainly remain the gold standard for colon cancer screening in the US, but if these results bear out, other less invasive types of screening, like home-based fecal immunochemical testing, could be viewed as equivalent options and receive more traction.
Obamacare enrollment at a record-high 14.5 million
Congress may not fund premium subsidies in 2023
The Affordable Care Act marks its 12th anniversary Wednesday, and despite a record 14.5 million enrollees, the Biden administration is preparing for the possibility that millions could lose coverage next year.
The $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus package (Public Law 117-2), signed March 2021, reduced Obamacare premiums to no more than 8.5% of income for eligible households and expanded premium subsidies to households earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level. The rescue plan also provided additional subsidies to help with out-of-pocket costs for low-income people. As a result, 2.8 million more consumers are receiving tax credits in 2022 compared to 2021.
But without congressional action, the subsidies—and the marketplace enrollment spikes they ushered in—could be lost in 2023. A new HHS report released Wednesday, shows an estimated 3.4 million Americans would lose marketplace coverage and become uninsured if the premium tax credits aren’t extended beyond 2022.
In a briefing with reporters Tuesday, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said her agency is “confident that Congress will really understand how important the subsidies were” to enrolling more people this year. The CMS would “pivot quickly,” however, to implement new policies and outreach plans if the subsidies aren’t extended as open enrollment for 2023 begins in November.
“That said, today and tomorrow we are celebrating the Affordable Care Act,” Brooks-LaSure added. “As part of that process, we’ve been reminding ourselves that sometimes it takes some time to pass legislation. And just like the Affordable Care Act took time, we’re confident that Congress is going to address these critical needs for the American people.”
After years of legal and political brawls that turned the landmark legislation into a political football, Obamacare “is at its strongest point ever,” Brooks-LaSure said. The 14.5 million total enrollees—those who extended coverage and those who signed up for the first time—is a 21% increase from last year. The number of new consumers during the 2022 open enrollment period increased by 20% to 3.1 million from 2.5 million in 2021.
This week, the Department of Health and Human Services will highlight the impact of the ACA and the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen the law. The CMS recently announced a new special enrollment period opportunity for people with household incomes under 150% of the federal poverty level who are eligible for premium tax credits. The new special enrollment period will make it easier for low-income people to enroll in coverage throughout the year.
Troubled times could be around the corner, however, as millions of people with Medicaid coverage could become uninsured after the public health emergency ends. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), signed March 2020, states must maintain existing Medicaid enrollment until the end of the month that the public health emergency is lifted. Once the continuous enrollment mandate ends, states will resume Medicaid redeterminations and disenrollments for people who no longer meet the program’s requirements.
Dan Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services at CMS, said the agency is working with states to make sure people who lose Medicaid coverage can be transferred into low- and no-cost Obamacare coverage.
“A substantial portion of individuals who will no longer be eligible for Medicaid will be eligible for other forms of coverage,” including marketplace coverage, Tsai told reporters Tuesday.
In a statement, President Joe Biden acknowledged the law’s great impact. “This law is the reason we have protections for pre-existing conditions in America. It is why women can no longer be charged more simply because they are women. It reduced prescription drug costs for nearly 12 million seniors. It allows millions of Americans to get free preventive screenings, so they can catch cancer or heart disease early—saving countless lives. And it is the reason why parents can keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.”
Access to healthcare in childhood has long term effects on health outcomes, but many children in the US are either uninsured or underinsured, meaning they often don’t have access to the care they need. Why is that and what can we do about it?
HENRY KOTULA 