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.
Related: US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
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.
Related: US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
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
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump metal tariffs wreak havoc on US factory
In the sweltering US summer, metal containers decorated with snowmen and sleighs are taking shape -- but tempers are also rising as their manufacturer grapples with President Donald Trump's steep steel tariffs. At Independent Can's factory in Belcamp, Maryland northeast of Baltimore, CEO Rick Huether recounts how he started working at his family's business at age 14. Huether, now 73, says he is determined to keep his manufacturing company afloat for generations to come. But Trump's tariffs are complicating this task. "We're living in chaos right now," he told AFP. Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump imposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and aluminum -- and then doubled the rate to 50 percent. This has weighed on operations at Independent Can, and Huether expects he eventually will have to raise prices. - Not enough tinplate - With the steady beat of presses, steel plates that have been coated with tin -- to prevent corrosion -- are turned into containers for cookies, dried fruit, coffee and milk powder at Huether's factory. But there is not enough of such American-made tinplate for companies like his. "In the United States, we can only make about 25 percent of the tinplate that's required to do what we do," in addition to what other manufacturers need, Huether said. "Those all require us to buy in the neighborhood of 70 percent of our steel outside of the United States," he added. While Huether is a proponent of growing the US manufacturing base, saying globalization has "gone almost a little bit too far," he expressed concern about Trump's methods. Trump has announced a stream of major tariffs only to later back off parts of them or postpone them, and also imposed duties on items the country does not produce. For now, Independent Can -- which employs nearly 400 people at four sites -- is ruling out any layoffs despite the current upheaval. But Huether said one of the company's plants in Iowa closed last year in part because of a previous increase in steel tariffs, during Trump's first presidential term. - Price hikes - With steel tariffs at 50 percent now, Huether expects he will ultimately have to raise his prices by more than 20 percent, given that tinplate represents a part of his production costs. Some buyers have already reduced their orders this year by 20 to 25 percent, over worries about the economy and about not having enough business themselves. Others now seem more inclined to buy American, but Huether expressed reservations over how long this trend might last, citing his experiences from the Covid-19 crisis. "During the pandemic, we took everybody in. As China shut down and the ports were locked up, our business went up 50 percent," he explained. But when the pandemic was over, customers turned back to purchasing from China, he said. "Today if people want to come to us, we'll take them in," he said, but added: "We need to have a two-year contract." Huether wants to believe that his company, which is almost a century old after being founded during the Great Depression, will weather the latest disruptions. "I think that our business will survive," he said, but added: "It's trying to figure out what you're going to sell in the next six months." myl/bys/sst
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens
WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Jackson questions if 'monied interests' are favored by court
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts
WASHINGTON − Chief Justice John Roberts has some advice for anyone unhappy with the Supreme Court's decisions. 'It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judges' fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this,' Roberts said at a judicial conference, the day after the Supreme Court handed down some of its biggest – and most divisive – opinions of the term. In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies. Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser – and the loser is not going to like the outcome. 'You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not,' he said. 'They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do.' More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices. In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. '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,' Barret wrote. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president 'the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.' 'As a result, the Judiciary – the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws – has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,' she wrote. Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term. But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from 'to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible.' 'It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours,' he said. 'And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months.' Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more. 'Things were a little crunched,' he said, 'toward the end this year.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
