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@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Senate rejects resolution to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine won congressional approval of a similar resolution to prevent the use of the military in Iran during Trump's first term, but the president vetoed it. WASHINGTON – The Senate voted against curbing President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran after the U.S. bombing of nuclear facilities and the fragile cease-fire that resulted. The 47 to 53 vote on June 27 killed the measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, which would have required a congressional vote before using the military against Iran again. His resolution was one of at least three pending in Congress that represented a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country. Trump argued as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But Democrats note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. What is a war-powers resolution? The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.' In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. 'It's a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more,' Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said of the resolution. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said forcing a congressional vote before military operations 'would paralyze this country.' Congress could cut off funding if lawmakers chose to do that, Graham said. 'This is a case study of the chaos that would be created,' Graham said. Trump told reporters at a June 27 White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," Trump said. Congress serves as check on 'dogs of war': Schiff Kaine had introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. Despite a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, Kaine said the framers of the Constitution placed the decision for declaring war into the hands of Congress even when George Washington was president. 'I pray the cease-fire continues but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor,' Kaine said. 'War is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way.' Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, said terminating the use of military weapons against Iran doesn't restrict the country from defending itself or sharing intelligence with Israel. 'There must be a check on the dogs of war,' Schiff said. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said wars are easy to start but often hard to end. 'Let's be clear: the threat was not imminent,' Merkley said. 'The administration instead acted precipitously, putting American lives at risk.' Two similar war-power resolutions are pending in the House Two similar resolutions are pending in the House. Votes could come in mid-July. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941. But he said there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. 'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Americans concerned about Iran retaliating for bombing: poll Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports. ___
Medscape
2 hours ago
- 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.
