US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional
The US supreme court has ruled that a key provision of 'Obamacare', formally known as the Affordable Care Act, is constitutional. The case challenged how members of an obscure but vital healthcare committee are appointed.
The committee, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), is a panel of 16 volunteer health experts who determine which evidence-based preventive health services private insurance companies must cover without cost for patients.
The requirement is a provision of the ACA – and one of the few instances when privately insured American patients pay nothing for healthcare.
The case, 'in line with other court decisions, strengthens the control of political appointees over the bureaucracy', said Dorit Reiss, a University of California San Francisco law professor and an expert in health law and vaccine policy.
The case, formally called Kennedy v Braidwood Management, Inc, affirms that final decisions come by secretaries, in this case health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a known vaccine skeptic.
'This makes it harder for Congress to isolate expert decisions from political review. So the stakes in appointing the political heads – in this case the secretary – are very, very high,' said Reiss.
While the court affirms the constitutionality of the taskforce itself, it also held that members force can be removed at will by the health secretary, and that the secretary may review the taskforce's recommendations before they take effect.
Kennedy used those powers only this June, when he unilaterally fired all sitting members of a critical vaccine advisory panel, and remade the panel with ideological allies. The new panel members then delivered Kennedy a victory by recommending against a vaccine preservative called thimerosal, despite a scientific consensus that the ingredient was safe.
The court issued the opinion in a 6-3 ruling. The opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and joined by John Roberts, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In 2020 alone, an estimated 150 million Americans benefited from the preventive healthcare provision, according to the O'Neill Institute at the Georgetown University law center in Washington DC. Although the provision requires insurers to cover a wide range of services – from annual check-ups to cancer screenings and immunizations – the case centered on the provision of Prep, or pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.
A small group of plaintiffs claimed provision of PrEP violated their religious beliefs. They were represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the former solicitor general of Texas who pioneered the state's 'bounty hunter' abortion law.
Their arguments were backed by Republican and conservative groups, although the specific ACA provision was defended by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Major public health groups, hospitals, disease advocacy groups and Democratic attorneys general opposed ending the provision.
Although the court affirmed the constitutionality of the panel, it also affirms that any health secretary, including Kennedy, could remake the panel with allies.
The secretary could 'override experts' conclusions and remove things like PrEP', said Reiss. However, she added that the power was not 'absolute'. If the secretary's recommendation contravened the decision of an expert panel and there was a lawsuit, the secretary would still need to make 'a convincing case that there was a reason to deviate from the panel, if there is a lawsuit', said Reiss.
That has left the Aids institute, and other groups who advocate for healthcare access for HIV and Aids patients, to say it 'celebrates' the decision while acknowledging uncertainty about the future.
'I think we have to be worried about what that means for future USPSTF decisions given what has happened with' the vaccine panel, said Rachel Klein, the deputy executive director of the Aids Institute.
'Knowing what preventive care is effective to keeping people healthy – and therefore cost-effective to cover – is crucial to helping people be as healthy as possible. That requires listening to medical and scientific experts. We hope that USPSTF will continue to be a body worthy of our trust to make scientifically sound decisions about preventive services going forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Did Hot Girls win the New York mayoral race for Zohran Mamdani?
Days before the New York mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani claimed victory in the Democratic primaries, Cait Camelia and Kaif Gilani walked the length of Manhattan with him during one of his final campaign appearances. 'We jumped in [on the walk] around Washington Square Park and watched these young men come up to him, dab him up, and say, 'Yo, you're so cool. Thank you so much for what you're doing',' said Camelia, 25. 'It's something they've been missing for a long time, someone who can introduce them to progressive ideas and pull them away from that right-wing manosphere.' Camelia and Gilani are the creatives behind 'Hot Girls 4 Zohran', a collective of young women and men who support Mamdani, 33, and make videos addressing the issues their generation faces, many of which are at the heart of the socialist's campaign. Gilani, 28, said being 'hot' had nothing to do with looks — but a desire to engage with progressive politics.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases, AP sources say
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Zohran Mamdani has struck a blow to the Democratic party's passivity
We're told that the Democratic party is at a crossroads, that leaders have lost their identity and their way. We're told that they must spend millions discovering their own 'Joe Rogan', or espouse deregulation, or surrender the fight for the rights of targeted minorities. The Democrats, we're told, are in a moment of soul searching, of trying to find out how they lost young men and the white working class. They're still thinking, half a decade on, of how to undo the supposed damage of the 2020 summer, when protesters opposed to the extrajudicial killings of Black civilians shouted: 'Defund the police.' The subtext of this handwringing, which has been incessant in the media and among party insiders since the November election, is that the party must move, yet again, to the right. It is presumed that they can't attract voters otherwise. The apparent victory (still unofficial because the counting won't technically be complete until July) of a 33-year-old socialist in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary this week suggests otherwise. Zohran Mamdani, a state assemblymember from Queens, was a little-known leftwing activist whose campaign against the former governor and New York household name Andrew Cuomo was polling in the single digits. But with immense personal charisma and a talent for retail politicking, airtight message discipline centered on making life affordable, and a small army of motivated young volunteers, Mamdani defeated a political dynasty, defied conventional wisdom, and is expected to win the American left its biggest electoral victory since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's primary coup in 2018. In the process, his campaign presented a new vision of the party: one that has energized voters with its authenticity and moral vision even as major donors and the party establishment have balked. The leaders of the Democratic establishment have long believed that the party's left flank was its greatest liability. Mamdani has proven that it can be an asset. Any responsible commentator will tell you that Mamdani's success in the New York mayoral primary will be difficult for other progressive candidates to replicate. The city's public campaign-funds matching program allowed the candidate to spend his time in highly visible public engagement with the people of New York – rather than on fundraising efforts among the rich. The ranked-choice voting system – still relatively new – incentivized him and the crowded other field of candidates to form a united front against Cuomo, and allowed Mamdani to capture the crucial endorsement of his fellow candidate Brad Lander, the beloved New York City comptroller. Mamdani, too, seems to have the kind of personal talent that is rare in any politician: a relaxed and personable demeanor, an uncommon gift for oratory, and a rhetoric of morality and dignity that appears not just plausibly authentic but genuinely inspiring, and is already drawing comparisons to liberal political giants like AOC and the young Barack Obama. Crucially, too, Mamdani is uncommonly disciplined: he avoided attacking the progressive liberals, like Lander and state senator Zellnor Myrie, who were slightly to his right, preferring to unite with them and recruit them into his movement, a gesture of pragmatic generosity that kept the field from turning into a circular firing squad. And he has a gravitas that most of us could not rise to, enduring cynical and often racist smears from Cuomo supporters, who called him antisemitic for his support of human rights for Palestinians with a calm dignity that emphasized his loyalty to all New Yorkers, Jewish or otherwise. All of this – his incentives, his talents – contributed to his victory. None will be easy to recreate in another race. And yet Mamdani's victory is a signal of a subterranean shift happening in the base of the Democratic party – the younger, more motivated, more active voters who the party leadership relies on but does not quite trust. The Democratic party's leaders – like Nancy Pelosi of California, but prominently including Mamdani's fellow New Yorkers Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries – have largely rolled over in the second Trump administration, failing to use either their procedural power or their public platforms to create leverage against the Maga agenda or advance an alternative vision for the country. Their passivity and risk aversion has stood in contrast to the mounting energy of their voters, whose anger at Trump's authoritarian ambitions, racist immigration policies and broader rollback of rights has sparked a growing protest movement. Energized liberal voters find that the Democratic politicians they elected to represent them are passive and complacent, even in the face of what they themselves correctly described, in 2024, as the ascent of a fascist movement. The party's rhetoric is not being matched by its actions, and its actions are not matching its voters' passions. Indeed, the party appears most energetic when it is crushing the ambitions of its charismatic younger members, as when it denied powerful committee positions to AOC and Texas's Jasmine Crockett. Establishment Democrats seem, if anything, as if they want to disappear, to be absolved of their responsibility to advance a political agenda of their own. This might be why they have fled, repeatedly, rightward, away from their own professed principles. This might be why they lined up, during the mayoral primary, behind Cuomo, the disgraced former governor whom many of them had called on to resign just four years ago his candidacy was a promise that their own structures of power and patronage would remain intact, that nothing much would change. Mamdani represented a threat to their own vision of a do-nothing political party. For that, they tried to crush him. You can only antagonize your own base for so long before they begin to notice. In a new poll conducted just days before Mamdani's upset victory, fully 62% of Democratic voters said that their party needs new leadership. Mamdani – youthful, energetic, and actually interested in governance – offers both a rebuke to the Democratic establishment and a vision of the party's renewal. It may be coming whether the Democratic National Committee likes it or not. Fed up with their useless, antagonist leadership and unwilling to give up on the prospect of progressive change, many members of the Democrats' hated base are certain to follow Mamdani's example, taking risks to challenge unpopular or ineffectual incumbents and entrenched local party machines. Since Bill Clinton's victory in 1992, the Democrats have been trying to reinvent themselves as a more conservative party, assuming that their future lay rightward. They were looking in the wrong direction. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
