Latest news with #preventivecare
Medscape
9 hours ago
- Health
- Medscape
Supreme Court Ruling Preserves Access to Preventive Services
Health advocates welcomed a US Supreme Court decision announced Friday that preserves a federal mandate for insurers to cover, without copays, certain preventive medical tests and treatments. The Supreme Court split 6-3 in the decision announced Friday. While the court ruling was seen largely as a win for medical and consumer groups, some voiced concerns about its impact on the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary's power over an influential panel, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Anthony Wright, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Families USA, said the Supreme Court ruling beat back 'yet another challenge' to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was a win in terms of guaranteeing more access to care. "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,' Wright said. Religious Objection to HIV Prevention Treatment The case stems from a complaint filed by Braidwood Management, a Christian-owned firm objecting to how a provision of the 2010 ACA has been implemented. The Texas firm wanted to exclude coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV and other preventive health services for religious objections. The ACA requires coverage without copay for tests and treatments that get 'A' and 'B' ratings from the USPSTF. The USPSTF has issued recommendations with these top marks for more than 40 tests and treatments, noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion in this case. Services with current 'A' and 'B' ratings from USPSTF include cancer and diabetes screenings, nicotine patches for adults trying to quit smoking, statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke, and physical therapy to help the elderly avoid falls, he wrote. Major Medical Groups Applaud Ruling The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society, and about 30 other patient and medical professional organizations applauded the Supreme Court decision in a joint statement Friday. In February, these groups had filed a brief with the Supreme Court, arguing in favor of the mandate. In it, these groups said almost 152 million people in the US were able to get access to preventive services without cost sharing in 2020 due to the mandate. Reducing insurance coverage for preventive services would 'lead to worsening patient outcomes, resulting in preventable deaths, and creating higher long-term medical costs,' said the groups in the brief. The key question before the Supreme Court in this case focused on the view of authority of the USPSTF. In the majority opinion, Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs sought to portray the USPSTF as an independent agency wielding 'unchecked power in making preventive-services recommendations of great consequence for the healthcare and health-insurance industries and the American people more broadly.' In fact, those challenging the ACA mandate asserted that, with respect to preventive-services recommendations, the Task Force members were 'more powerful' than even the US president or the secretary of the HHS, Kavanaugh wrote. That's not the case, Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. Instead, the USPSTF members serve at the will of the secretary of the HHS, who can remove them, Kavanaugh noted. In addition, federal law allows the HHS secretary to directly review and block USPSTF recommendations before they take effect, Kavanaugh wrote. Some Reservations Family USA's Wright noted how HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr recently replaced members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee as an example of his concerns. The American Gastroenterological Association called the Supreme Court ruling 'positive news for patient care protections.' 'The ruling reiterates the authority that HHS has over the task force and its decisions, and we remain vigilant considering the secretary's recent actions to other expert panels,' the AGA said Friday in a statement. 'We will continue to work with our coalition partners and champions to ensure patients continue to have coverage of essential preventive screenings.' The ACA mandate also has helped make cancer screening more palatable to younger patients, which physicians note is especially important given that more cases seem to be occurring earlier in life. National Institutes of Health researchers recently reported that the incidence of 14 cancer types increased among people under age 50 between 2010 and 2019. 'To convince healthy people to undergo a test when they're feeling fine to prevent a cancer that might or might not develop years in the future, it requires reducing barriers and taking away copays and providing insurance coverage,' Jatin Roper, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University and AGA spokesman, told Medscape in recent interview. Roper reported no relevant financial disclosures.
New York Times
16 hours ago
- Health
- New York Times
Justices Uphold Preventive Care Provision in Affordable Care Act
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to offer some kinds of preventive care for free. In a 6-to-3 decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices ruled that a federal task force that determines which preventive health measures insurance companies must cover at no cost to the insured was constitutional. The decision appears to safeguard coverage for tens of millions of Americans who receive some free health care services, including cancer and diabetes screenings, medications to reduce heart disease and strokes, and eye ointment for newborns to prevent infections causing blindness. Justice Kavanaugh's decision was joined by two other conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the three liberals: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court's other three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch — dissented. The case is the latest lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's central legislative achievement. The heath care law survived three previous major challenges at the Supreme Court, in 2012, 2015 and 2021. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the decisive vote to save the law in 2012, a crucial milestone in which the justices upheld the law's core mandate that most employers provide health insurance for their workers. This dispute centered on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a panel of experts in the Department of Health and Human Services that recommends preventive medical services, including screenings and medications to prevent serious diseases. The task force was devised to determine preventive health services that insurance companies are required to offer for free under the Affordable Care Act. The challenge to the task force focused on the process for selecting its members. The task force is composed of 16 volunteers, all nationally recognized experts in prevention and primary care, including family medicine, geriatrics and obstetrics. Members are appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services to serve four-year terms. At issue was whether these members are legally considered 'inferior' or 'principal' officers. Under the Constitution, 'principal officers' must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Reuters
17 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
Gilead shares rise after US top court ruling on preventative coverage
June 27 (Reuters) - Shares of Gilead (GILD.O), opens new tab rose nearly 3% after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday preserved a key element of the Obamacare law that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. At the heart of the case was whether the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which determines which preventive services insurers must cover at no cost, was unconstitutionally structured because its members are appointed without Senate confirmation. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution. On Friday, the justices in a 6-3 decision reversed the lower court's ruling. This eased fears on insurance coverage for PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, drugs approved in the U.S. to prevent HIV infection, which can cause AIDS. "This ruling is a relief in maintaining the critical role of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force to cover preventive care services under the Affordable Care Act, including HIV PrEP," said Mitchell Warren, AIDS nonprofit AVAC's executive director in an email. The drugs are made by Gilead and by ViiV Healthcare, a joint venture of GSK (GSK.L), opens new tab, Pfizer (PFE.N), opens new tab and Shionogi (4507.T), opens new tab. Analysts had warned ahead of the verdict that any adverse decision could reduce uptake among lower-income and younger patients, weighing on Gilead's HIV prevention revenues. Gilead's HIV franchise, including its PrEP products, is a significant revenue driver. Obamacare had fueled broad insurance coverage without cost-sharing, contributing to steady prescription volumes. Gilead's HIV business, which includes prominent PrEP drug Descovy, accounted for $4.6 billion in sales in the latest reported quarter. Total revenue during the said period was $6.6 billion.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of a key element of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive medical care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. The federal government has appealed a lower court's determination that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. 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. 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. Public health advocates had warned that life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free under most insurance plans may become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them, if the justices upheld the 5th Circuit's ruling. 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. 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." The 5th Circuit's ruling also rejected the government's request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue - a process called severing - in order to make that part of the law conform to the Constitution.
Reuters
21 hours ago
- Health
- Reuters
US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of a key element of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive medical care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. The federal government has appealed a lower court's determination that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. 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. 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. Public health advocates had warned that life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free under most insurance plans may become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them, if the justices upheld the 5th Circuit's ruling. 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. 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, opens new tab 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." The 5th Circuit's ruling also rejected the government's request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue - a process called severing - in order to make that part of the law conform to the Constitution.
