The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's no-cost coverage mandates for certain preventive care services. This decision places the landmark health care law in front of the justices once again, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.
The case in question could potentially impact Americans' access to cost-free preventive treatments and services, including HIV prevention medications, heart statins, and various screenings for cancers and other diseases. The cost of these preventive services could act as a barrier for individuals, especially those with lower incomes, leading to delayed detection of potentially life-threatening illnesses.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the mandates, based on the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force, violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution due to the appointment process of its members. The ruling specifically targeted no-cost coverage requirements introduced after the enactment of Obamacare in March 2010.
While the appellate ruling only applied to the challengers in the specific case, both the Biden administration and the challengers agreed that it set a precedent for potential nationwide challenges to the mandates. The case puts at risk various no-cost coverage mandates, including prenatal nutritional supplements, physical therapy for older Americans, and lung cancer screenings that could save thousands of lives annually.
Notably, the case does not impact other preventive services such as well-baby visits, autism screenings for children, cervical cancer screenings, and vaccination programs.
Studies have shown that the Obamacare mandate has increased the uptake of preventive services and reduced care disparities in communities of color. The US Solicitor General and the challengers have both urged the Supreme Court to review the case, emphasizing the potential harm to millions of Americans if the mandates are invalidated.
The lawsuit challenging the mandates was filed by a Texas business, Braidwood, citing moral objections to covering certain treatments. The legal advocacy organization America First Legal is representing the challengers in the case.
