Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
The suit started in Texas where two Christian owned business and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal issue at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether USPSTF is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect.
"The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect," he wrote. "So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command."
The Health and Human Services Secretary has always appointed USPSTF members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health.
But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary could also remove members and block recommendations, she said.
Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said "there is reason to be worried."
The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy nor have they "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," USPSTF chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY.
"While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far."
Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants
Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the SCOTUS decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications.
But she also called the ruling both an "ending and a beginning."
"It's the ending of the challenge but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about... many aspects of medical care," she said.
More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
If Kennedy plans to target USPSTF, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service.
America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the ongoing legal process but affirms that the SCOTUS ruling will not impact any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY.
Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters.
Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
The suit started in Texas where two Christian owned business and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal issue at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether USPSTF is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. "The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect," he wrote. "So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command." The Health and Human Services Secretary has always appointed USPSTF members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary could also remove members and block recommendations, she said. Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said "there is reason to be worried." The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy nor have they "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," USPSTF chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. "While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far." Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the SCOTUS decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications. But she also called the ruling both an "ending and a beginning." "It's the ending of the challenge but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about... many aspects of medical care," she said. More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage If Kennedy plans to target USPSTF, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service. America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the ongoing legal process but affirms that the SCOTUS ruling will not impact any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY. Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
SCOTUS birthright citizenship decision reveals deeper issue
Barrett orchestrated a complete smackdown of Jackson's dissent. The overtly hostile nature of Barrett's attack on Jackson reveals heightened tensions within the Supreme Court. Barrett's hostilities toward Jackson reveal tensions in Supreme Court In her majority opinion, Barrett repeatedly calls out Jackson by name, a practice often avoided by the writers of majority opinions, who opt to criticize "the dissent" as a general category instead. Justices accosting each other by name is rare - even in Justice Neil Gorsuch's own spat with Jackson just a few days prior, he was not this hostile. Jackson's dissent isn't heroic. It exposes big problem with Supreme Court. | Opinion Even as the dissents have tended to be on the dramatic side in recent years, rarely have they become outright hostile toward one another. However, Barrett in particular seems to be fed up with Jackson's liberal jurisprudence. "We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote for the majority. "We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." In a single line, Barrett simultaneously dismisses the opinion of Jackson while also levying a legitimate criticism against her dissent. Jackson advocates for universal injunctions as a check against presidential overreach, but trading in one branch's overreach of their authority for another's does not produce a balanced system of government. Opinion: Trump gets a win on injunctions, but will birthright citizenship order hold? In the judicial equivalent of the People's Elbow, Barrett uses Jackson's own words against her to further advance that point. "JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' That goes for judges too." Barrett's critiques of Jackson reveal a growing tension between the court's two youngest judges, who in all likelihood will be serving alongside each other for the next couple of decades. Just three years into their tenure together, Barrett is already fed up with Jackson's misunderstanding of the constitutional role of judges. Barrett and Jackson disagree over the role of judges Today's argument reveals a stark difference in the judicial philosophies of Barrett and Jackson. Their chief disagreement on the issue of nationwide injunctions is whether they are the constitutionally proper form of relief against executive actions suspected of being unconstitutional. Barrett contends that "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history." "Universal injunctions were not a feature of federal court litigation until sometime in the 20th century," Barrett wrote in her majority opinion. "Yet such injunctions remained rare until the turn of the 21st century, when their use gradually accelerated." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The primary dissent, authored by Justice Sonya Sotomayor and signed on to by all three liberal justices, charges that "By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary's authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies." Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion, in addition to her joining of Sotomayor's, which goes further. "In a constitutional Republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the Executive to follow the law -- and it must," Jackson wrote in her dissent. "Made up of 'free, impartial, and independent' judges and justices, the Judiciary checks the political branches of Government by explaining what the law is and 'securing obedience' with it." Both dissents insist this decision gives the executive branch unbound authority to act unconstitutionally without any check against it. But it's not as if universal injunctions are the only option for relief. As the conservatives in the majority highlight, traditional class action lawsuits offer relief in a similar way to these injunctions, but with a higher procedural burden than sweeping judicial orders. The issue with injunctions is that they are a blunt instrument, often used in cases that require a scalpel. The conservatives on the court understand that these orders exceed the constitutional role of judges and are willing to rein them in because of that. The liberal justices are comfortable with combating executive overreach with judicial overreach. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Senate kills resolution to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Trump argued as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But Democrats note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. What is a war-powers resolution? The Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare war." In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. "It's a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more," Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said of the resolution. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said forcing a congressional vote before military operations "would paralyze this country." Congress could cut off funding if lawmakers chose to do that, Graham said. "This is a case study of the chaos that would be created," Graham said. Trump told reporters at a June 27 White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," Trump said. Congress serves as check on 'dogs of war': Schiff Kaine had introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. Despite a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, Kaine said the framers of the Constitution placed the decision for declaring war into the hands of Congress even when George Washington was president. "I pray the cease-fire continues but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor," Kaine said. "War is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way." Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, said terminating the use of military weapons against Iran doesn't restrict the country from defending itself or sharing intelligence with Israel. "There must be a check on the dogs of war," Schiff said. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said wars are easy to start but often hard to end. "Let's be clear: the threat was not imminent," Merkley said. "The administration instead acted precipitously, putting American lives at risk." Two similar war-power resolutions are pending in the House Two similar resolutions are pending in the House. Votes could come in mid-July. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees - Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services - introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941. But he said there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. "The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Americans concerned about Iran retaliating for bombing: poll Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
