Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients.
The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency.
The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of
immigration
status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people.
Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids.
'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have
devastating consequences
on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.'
The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump
ordered federal agencies
to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants.
The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding.
Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services.
Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
.
The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020.
One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others.
'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote.
The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said.
Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint.
'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
30 days and then what on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court preserves Obamacare coverage of preventive health care
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
ACB: Trump admin promises compliance
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
