Supreme Court hears challenge to Obamacare no-cost preventive health benefits
Preventive care health benefits provided at no cost to tens of millions of Americans since 2010 under a popular provision of the Affordable Care Act are in the balance Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices consider whether the government task force behind the mandate to insurers is unconstitutional.
Among the services the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force designates for no-cost coverage under the federal health law are statins to lower cholesterol; colonoscopies for 45- to 49-year-olds; preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medicine to reduce the spread of HIV; medications to lower the risk of breast cancer for women; and lung cancer screenings for smokers.
The case was brought by a group of employers and individuals who oppose some of the task force's recommendations for covered services on religious groups, specifically the PrEP medication to prevent HIV. They allege the group's structure violates the Constitution and lower federal courts agreed.
MORE: Supreme Court to hear arguments over injunctions on Trump bid to end birthright citizenship
If the justices uphold the decisions, the task force and its recommendations since 2010 could be invalidated -- and along with them the guarantee of no-cost preventive services coverage many people enjoy.
"The case is not the kind of existential threat that we have seen in previous Supreme Court cases involving the ACA, but it's certainly something that could affect a lot of people," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy group.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the structure of the 16-member task force is illegal under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The provision requires "principle officers" of the U.S. government, such as Cabinet secretaries and ambassadors, to be confirmed by the Senate. It stipulates that "inferior officers" who are appointed by Senate-confirmed officials are permissible, provided they are supervised and reviewed.
The plaintiffs allege that members of the task force, who are appointed and supervised by the Health and Human Services secretary, are not properly appointed and have too much power. While they can be removed at will, their recommendations for covered health services cannot be reviewed or overridden by anyone.
'Americans have the constitutionally protected freedom to live and work according to their religious beliefs, and governments exist to defend that freedom," said Daniel Grabowski, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group supporting the plaintiffs. "We urge the Supreme Court to restore this accountability within the federal government and to the American people.'
The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the task force unconstitutional and that its recommendations since 2010 be invalidated.
The Trump administration is defending the constitutionality of the task force and the health secretary's power to oversee the body's recommendations.
More than 150 million Americans rely on early screenings and interventions for chronic conditions under no-cost preventive services, according to American medical organizations. Public health groups say a decision striking down the task force could deeply affect the long-term health of Americans and disease prevention efforts. Insurers worry that it could inject instability into the insurance market, while hospital groups fear they may have to shoulder more of the burden from people who are sicker.
MORE: Supreme Court tepid on Trump while defending power to check president: ANALYSIS
"The ACA's preventive services requirement has been a game-changer, providing access to evidence-based preventive care and early detection of serious medical conditions," said Wayne Turner, a senior attorney at the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit group that advocates for low-income communities. "The ACA's coverage and cost-sharing protections are especially important for low-income persons, who will be harmed most if the Supreme Court refuses to allow the ACA provision to stand."
Oral arguments in the case -- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management -- will be heard at the Supreme Court on Monday. A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Supreme Court hears challenge to Obamacare no-cost preventive health benefits originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IQVIA Holdings (NYSE:IQV) Sees 11% Share Price Rise Over Last Week
IQVIA Holdings experienced a 10% rise in share price over the last week, correlating with its recent developments, notably the dosing of the first patient in the RENEW Phase 2 trial and its strategic alliance with Sarah Cannon Research Institute to optimize oncology trials. These initiatives likely provided a positive sentiment boost, aligning well with the broader market momentum, as indices such as the S&P 500 also reached new highs. The market's anticipation over US-China trade talks and overall strong corporate earnings have supported the upward trend, further enhancing IQV's market performance. We've identified 1 warning sign for IQVIA Holdings that you should be aware of. Uncover 18 companies that survived and thrived after COVID and have the right ingredients to survive Trump's tariffs. The recent 10% rise in IQVIA Holdings' share price has been influenced by important developments like the dosing in the RENEW Phase 2 trial and a key alliance with Sarah Cannon Research Institute. These initiatives are expected to potentially drive revenue growth, particularly as the strategic alliance optimizes oncology trials. The company's past performance, with total returns of 10.45% over five years, suggests modest growth in investor value. However, compared to the US Life Sciences industry's one-year return of 27% decline, IQVIA's recent rise highlights positive market sentiment. These initiatives, combined with FDA reforms and NVIDIA collaboration, may lower operational costs and have a favorable impact on earnings forecasts. Analysts predict revenue to grow by 5.2% annually over the next three years, which is somewhat cautious compared to the general expectations for the life sciences sector. The recent share price movement to US$146.2 remains below the consensus price target of US$216.31, indicating potential for future appreciation if the projected growth in revenue and earnings materializes. Click here to discover the nuances of IQVIA Holdings with our detailed analytical financial health report. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include NYSE:IQV. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on
