Latest news with #BrettKavanaugh
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- Health
- 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@
Bloomberg
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Ruling Could Unleash Trump Agenda
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican's unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences. On Friday, in the high court's usual end-of-term reveal, one of those consequences arrived. The court's six-member GOP-appointed supermajority curtailed one of the few powers federal judges have to restrain Trump's effort to consolidate power in a fashion unseen in the nation's 249-year history. Trump's picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump's attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. The suit started in Texas, where two Christian-owned businesses 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 question at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether the task force 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 task force 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 also could 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 has the secretary "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," task force 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 high court's 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 the preventive services task force, 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 legal process but affirms that the court's ruling will not affect 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@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
USA Today
13 hours ago
- Health
- USA Today
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. 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@
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Health
- Time of India
US Supreme Court preserves key element of Obamacare preventive care
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday preserved a key element of the Obamacare law that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings and HIV prevention medication at no cost to patients. The 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law formally called the Affordable Care Act has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, was not validly appointed. The ruling means that certain life-saving tests and treatments must continue to be provided cost-free under most insurance plans. That allays concerns raised by public health advocates that the court might open the door to insurers subjecting these services to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo The task force's 16 members are selected by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that this arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's provision on the appointment of governmental officers. The case arose when several individual Christian plaintiffs and two small businesses sued in federal court in Texas in 2020 to challenge the task force's structure. It was the latest in a years-long series of challenges to Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court. Live Events A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution's "appointments clause," are "principal officers" who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or "inferior officers" not subject to these requirements. Kavanaugh wrote that because task force members are adequately supervised by the U.S. secretary of health and human services, members are "inferior officers" and do not need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. "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," Kavanaugh wrote. "So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President, preserving the chain of command," wrote Kavanaugh, who was joined by fellow conservative Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the court's three liberal members. Three conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented. Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs had included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use." The U.S. government's appeal of the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially was filed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration before being taken up by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. The task force is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient's condition worsens. The task force has identified dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The justices during April 21 arguments in the case posed questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the task force, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if it operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law. The Justice Department urged the justices to view the task force's members as "inferior officers." Hashim Mooppan, a Justice Department lawyer, told the justices that the HHS secretary can remove task force members at will, review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect, and can require the task force to obtain his approval before it issues any recommendations. The plaintiffs contended that the task force's lack of supervision and insulation from removal makes its members "principal officers."
