Latest news with #Braidwood
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Supreme Court could help preserve Obamacare's no-cost preventive care task force
The Supreme Court on Monday signaled it may uphold a task force that recommends which preventive health care services Obamacare requires to be covered at no-cost, with several conservative justices voicing skepticism about a challenge that is based on how members of the panel are appointed. At stake is the ability of millions of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as cancer screenings, statins that help prevent cardiovascular disease, PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections, and counseling referrals for pregnant and postpartum women at increased risk of depression. The task force's recommendations were challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including the PrEP medications. Braidwood argued that because Congress demanded the task force's work be 'independent' that its members should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. And because of that, it said that recommendations from the panel since the health reform law's enactment in March 2010 should be thrown out. But the argument that the board members must be appointed by the president drew skepticism from several key conservatives, most notably Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh said that members of the task force are removable at will by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Truly independent agencies, he noted, typically have legal protections that require a president to show cause before firing members of a board. 'We usually don't interpret statutes to create independent agencies without some indication that's stronger than what we have here that this is really protected from presidential … removal,' Kavanaugh said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to agree – at one point describing the challengers' position as 'very maximalist.' Still, several justices left open the possibility that the court might send the case back to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals to answer other questions, including which officials Congress thought would appoint the task force members. It was also unclear how the court will handle earlier recommendations of services that had been made by previously appointed task force members. Before 2023, the task force members were originally appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of HHS. During the course of the litigation, then HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments. Braidwood argues that the original appointments were unconstitutional and that Becerra's move didn't retroactively address potential problems with the recommendations those earlier panels made. The case, which is on appeal from the conservative 5th Circuit, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the popular provision of Obamacare since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. It also came amid a scorching and separate fight over Trump's ability to control independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. In a series of decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to limit the independence of those agencies from the political whims of the White House. 'We don't go around just creating independent agencies,' quipped Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing said. 'More often we destroy independent agencies.' But at least some of the court's conservatives, including Justice Samuel Alito, questioned how much power the secretary of Health and Human Services has to veto the recommendations of the task force just because he can remove them at will. At one point, Alito described the arguments from Hashim Mooppan, an attorney for the Trump administration, as 'jerry-built.' 'If Congress really wanted these task force members to do the bidding of the secretary, isn't that an incredibly odd way to go about conferring that authority?' Alito asked. After listening to nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, Nicholas Bagley, a professor at University of Michigan Law School who specializes in administrative and health law, said the justices seemed to be learning towards the government's arguments. 'With oral argument wrapping up, it looks like the government is likely to win in Braidwood, saving the constitutionality of the preventive services mandate,' he posted on X, later telling CNN that 'the government had a good day in court.' Those challenging the structure of the task force were represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known conservative lawyer who has been involved in other culture war disputes in court, including a significant abortion case at the Supreme Court, and who represented Trump when he was a presidential candidate in a challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to remove him from the ballot. The challengers' religious liberties claims were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute in front of the court Monday focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. A majority of justices expressed 'significant skepticism' about the Mitchell's position, said Andrew Pincus, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown who filed a brief supporting the government on behalf of the American Public Health Association. Several of the justices, Pincus said, expressed the view that there's 'plenty of room in the statute to conclude that the secretary of HHS has the power to control whether these recommendations are binding on private parties' through the power to appoint and remove the task force members and to determine whether their recommendations will be binding.
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Task Force That Issues Preventive Care Mandates
Supreme Court justices considered on April 21 the constitutionality of a federal panel that issues mandates requiring insurers to cover preventive medical services without cost to patients. In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc., the justices examined a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that allows the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to make binding recommendations about preventive medical services, such as medications and screenings. The act, also known as the Obamacare statute, was enacted in 2010. The task force, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Members of the task force are appointed by the HHS secretary. Texas-based Braidwood Management sued over mandates that the task force approved, to which the company expressed religious objections. Related Stories 4/21/2025 1/11/2025 The mandates cover a wide variety of treatments, including HIV prevention medicine and sexually transmitted disease screenings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in June 2024 that the task force's mandates were invalid because the structure of the task force violates the Constitution's appointments clause, according to the government's September 2024 That clause provides that the U.S. president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Principal officers must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but inferior officers may be appointed by the president alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined the mandates could not be upheld because the task force members were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The federal district court was correct to block HHS from enforcing the mandates, the circuit court stated, according to the petition. Braidwood, which is being represented by a legal team that includes the America First Legal Foundation, also The brief said the statute 'is of immense importance,' and that the high court 'should weigh in rather than leaving the constitutionality of [the law] and the appointments of the Task Force members to be resolved entirely by the court of appeals.' Braidwood's attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, told the justices during the April 21 oral argument that the Fifth Circuit was correct to hold that task force members are 'principal officers.' 'They cannot be inferior officers because their … preventive care coverage mandates, are neither directed nor supervised by the secretary of Health and Human Services or by anyone else who has been appointed as a principal officer,' he said. Mitchell said the Supreme Court 'must, to the maximum possible extent, respect the will of Congress as reflected in its enacted laws.' 'The government's proposed remedy would rewrite the statute into something unrecognizable by the Congress that enacted the [statute],' he said. 'It is not even clear that Congress would have approved a regime in which politicians, rather than an independent task force, decide the preventive care that insurers must cover.' Chief Justice John Roberts told Mitchell that the task force's work is 'fairly technical, medically and scientifically.' Is the HHS secretary supposed to be examining details of recommendations, Roberts asked. Mitchell said the secretary 'clearly has the authority to do so,' but whether he chooses to defer to the expertise of the members 'is irrelevant to the constitutional question.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Braidwood's argument treats the task force as a 'massively important agency that operates with unreviewable authority to make really critical decisions that are going to affect the economy.' Normally, Congress would have made the importance of the task force clear, 'and I just don't see indications of that,' Kavanaugh said. Mitchell replied that the statute says the task force 'shall be independent and shielded from political pressure.' 'It's hard for me to see stronger language than that,' the lawyer said. Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan said the task force members are inferior officers, not principal officers. The members are 'subject to ample supervision by the secretary in issuing recommendations that bind the public,' and the secretary can fire them at will, Mooppan said. The secretary can review members' recommendations, prevent them from taking effect, and order the members to rescind them, he said. The Supreme Court should find that the language in the legislative provision is 'unenforceable and severable,' meaning it can be struck down without invalidating the entire statute, Mooppan said. This is a developing story and will be updated.
CNN
21-04-2025
- Health
- CNN
Supreme Court could help preserve Obamacare's no-cost preventive care task force
The Supreme Court on Monday signaled it may uphold a task force that recommends which preventive health care services Obamacare requires to be covered at no-cost, with several conservative justices voicing skepticism about a challenge that is based on how members of the panel are appointed. At stake is the ability of millions of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as cancer screenings, statins that help prevent cardiovascular disease, PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections, and counseling referrals for pregnant and postpartum women at increased risk of depression. The task force's recommendations were challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including the PrEP medications. Braidwood argued that because Congress demanded the task force's work be 'independent' that its members should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. And because of that, it said that recommendations from the panel since the health reform law's enactment in March 2010 should be thrown out. But the argument that the board members must be appointed by the president drew skepticism from several key conservatives, most notably Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh said that members of the task force are removable at will by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Truly independent agencies, he noted, typically have legal protections that require a president to show cause before firing members of a board. 'We usually don't interpret statutes to create independent agencies without some indication that's stronger than what we have here that this is really protected from presidential … removal,' Kavanaugh said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to agree – at one point describing the challengers' position as 'very maximalist.' Still, several justices left open the possibility that the court might send the case back to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals to answer other questions, including which officials Congress thought would appoint the task force members. It was also unclear how the court will handle earlier recommendations of services that had been made by previously appointed task force members. Before 2023, the task force members were originally appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of HHS. During the course of the litigation, then HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments. Braidwood argues that the original appointments were unconstitutional and that Becerra's move didn't retroactively address potential problems with the recommendations those earlier panels made. The case, which is on appeal from the conservative 5th Circuit, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the popular provision of Obamacare since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. It also came amid a scorching and separate fight over Trump's ability to control independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. In a series of decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to limit the independence of those agencies from the political whims of the White House. 'We don't go around just creating independent agencies,' quipped Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing said. 'More often we destroy independent agencies.' But at least some of the court's conservatives, including Justice Samuel Alito, questioned how much power the secretary of Health and Human Services has to veto the recommendations of the task force just because he can remove them at will. At one point, Alito described the arguments from Hashim Mooppan, an attorney for the Trump administration, as 'jerry-built.' 'If Congress really wanted these task force members to do the bidding of the secretary, isn't that an incredibly odd way to go about conferring that authority?' Alito asked. After listening to nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, Nicholas Bagley, a professor at University of Michigan Law School who specializes in administrative and health law, said the justices seemed to be learning towards the government's arguments. 'With oral argument wrapping up, it looks like the government is likely to win in Braidwood, saving the constitutionality of the preventive services mandate,' he posted on X, later telling CNN that 'the government had a good day in court.' Those challenging the structure of the task force were represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known conservative lawyer who has been involved in other culture war disputes in court, including a significant abortion case at the Supreme Court, and who represented Trump when he was a presidential candidate in a challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to remove him from the ballot. The challengers' religious liberties claims were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute in front of the court Monday focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. A majority of justices expressed 'significant skepticism' about the Mitchell's position, said Andrew Pincus, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown who filed a brief supporting the government on behalf of the American Public Health Association. Several of the justices, Pincus said, expressed the view that there's 'plenty of room in the statute to conclude that the secretary of HHS has the power to control whether these recommendations are binding on private parties' through the power to appoint and remove the task force members and to determine whether their recommendations will be binding.
CNN
21-04-2025
- Health
- CNN
Supreme Court could help preserve Obamacare's no-cost preventive care task force
The Supreme Court on Monday signaled it may uphold a task force that recommends which preventive health care services Obamacare requires to be covered at no-cost, with several conservative justices voicing skepticism about a challenge that is based on how members of the panel are appointed. At stake is the ability of millions of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as cancer screenings, statins that help prevent cardiovascular disease, PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections, and counseling referrals for pregnant and postpartum women at increased risk of depression. The task force's recommendations were challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including the PrEP medications. Braidwood argued that because Congress demanded the task force's work be 'independent' that its members should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. And because of that, it said that recommendations from the panel since the health reform law's enactment in March 2010 should be thrown out. But the argument that the board members must be appointed by the president drew skepticism from several key conservatives, most notably Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh said that members of the task force are removable at will by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Truly independent agencies, he noted, typically have legal protections that require a president to show cause before firing members of a board. 'We usually don't interpret statutes to create independent agencies without some indication that's stronger than what we have here that this is really protected from presidential … removal,' Kavanaugh said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to agree – at one point describing the challengers' position as 'very maximalist.' Still, several justices left open the possibility that the court might send the case back to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals to answer other questions, including which officials Congress thought would appoint the task force members. It was also unclear how the court will handle earlier recommendations of services that had been made by previously appointed task force members. Before 2023, the task force members were originally appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of HHS. During the course of the litigation, then HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments. Braidwood argues that the original appointments were unconstitutional and that Becerra's move didn't retroactively address potential problems with the recommendations those earlier panels made. The case, which is on appeal from the conservative 5th Circuit, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the popular provision of Obamacare since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. It also came amid a scorching and separate fight over Trump's ability to control independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. In a series of decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to limit the independence of those agencies from the political whims of the White House. 'We don't go around just creating independent agencies,' quipped Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing said. 'More often we destroy independent agencies.' But at least some of the court's conservatives, including Justice Samuel Alito, questioned how much power the secretary of Health and Human Services has to veto the recommendations of the task force just because he can remove them at will. At one point, Alito described the arguments from Hashim Mooppan, an attorney for the Trump administration, as 'jerry-built.' 'If Congress really wanted these task force members to do the bidding of the secretary, isn't that an incredibly odd way to go about conferring that authority?' Alito asked. After listening to nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, Nicholas Bagley, a professor at University of Michigan Law School who specializes in administrative and health law, said the justices seemed to be learning towards the government's arguments. 'With oral argument wrapping up, it looks like the government is likely to win in Braidwood, saving the constitutionality of the preventive services mandate,' he posted on X, later telling CNN that 'the government had a good day in court.' Those challenging the structure of the task force were represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known conservative lawyer who has been involved in other culture war disputes in court, including a significant abortion case at the Supreme Court, and who represented Trump when he was a presidential candidate in a challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to remove him from the ballot. The challengers' religious liberties claims were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute in front of the court Monday focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. A majority of justices expressed 'significant skepticism' about the Mitchell's position, said Andrew Pincus, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown who filed a brief supporting the government on behalf of the American Public Health Association. Several of the justices, Pincus said, expressed the view that there's 'plenty of room in the statute to conclude that the secretary of HHS has the power to control whether these recommendations are binding on private parties' through the power to appoint and remove the task force members and to determine whether their recommendations will be binding.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This Supreme Court Decision Could Make It Harder For Millions To Access Preventive Health Care
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood, the first significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act under the current Trump administration and a case that could strip away insurance coverage for preventive services like cancer screenings, HIV prevention and diabetes medication for millions of Americans. The case has its origins in a 2020 legal challenge by Braidwood Management, Inc., a Texas-based Christian company that sued the federal government and claimed providing coverage for PrEP — an HIV preventive medication also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis — violated its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At the time, Dr. Steven Hotze, the sole trustee and beneficiary of the Braidwood Management company, said he was unwilling to pay for PrEP or STI screenings for his employees. 'They are consequences of a patient's choice to engage in drug use, prostitution, homosexual conduct, or sexual promiscuity – all of which are contrary to Dr. Hotze's sincere religious beliefs,' the complaint read. The central question before the Supreme Court now is not about religious beliefs. Instead, the justices have been asked to weigh in on whether an independent task force has the authority to recommend preventive services like PrEP be covered by health insurers under the U.S. Constitution. The United States Preventive Services Task Force is an independent group of volunteer medical experts who work outside of the federal government, although they are appointed by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and their work is supported by an agency within HHS. Under the 2010 landmark Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama, private insurers are required to cover preventive services that are recommended by the task force. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Braidwood, however, private health insurers would no longer be required to fully cover preventive services and in turn, would make health caremore expensive by adding on copays, deductibles or coinsurance to consumers. The outcome of the case could have widespread ramifications for 150 million Americans on private insurance. Thirty-six states don't currently already have protections for coverage of preventive care built into their state insurance plans. Public health advocates warn that people who need the care the most would be deterred from accessing it altogether. In the lawsuit, Braidwood argues that the task force wields too much power to determine what types of preventive care are covered under the ACA and does not get enough oversight from the health secretary. In 2022, a district court sided with Braidwood and also ruled that forcing coverage of PrEP violated the company's religious freedoms. The Biden administration appealed the decision in 2024. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that the task force wielded 'unreviewable power.' After President Joe Biden left office, the Trump administration agreed to pick up the case and defend the task force. The Justice Department has argued that because the HHS secretary can remove task force members at any moment, the secretary has the appropriate oversight over the group. The lawyer representing Braidwood is Jonathan Mitchell, an anti-abortion activist who represented President Donald Trump when Colorado tried to exclude him from its 2024 presidential ballot. Leslie McGorman, the director of policy and strategy at AIDS United, said the fact that the Trump administration is defending this case in court and making the same argument as the Biden administration 'could potentially be a bright spot.' But she said her optimism only goes so far, as oral arguments for the case come less than a month after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shrunk the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and eliminated entire offices dedicated to HIV prevention and treatment. Last month, the administration also quietly proposed a rule that would dismantle many parts of the ACA. 'There's an inevitable chasm that continues to grow between those who have private insurance and those who rely on the government for their health care needs,' McGorman said about the recent restructuring of HHS. 'We just have less and less interest from this administration to really care at all about the safety net.' McGorman and other HIV and LGBTQ+ advocates worry that a Supreme Court decision axing no-cost preventive services could further exacerbate existing health disparities between marginalized communities and other Americans. Almost two-thirds of the 1.2 million people who could benefit from PrEP are not taking it, even though the medication is widely available, CDC data shows. Black and Latino communities, gay and bisexual men, trans women, and people living in the South and rural areas experience some of the highest rates of new HIV infections, while facing significant barriers in accessing heath care, including PrEP, due to financial barriers, lack of insurance or discrimination in medical settings. 'PrEP was explicitly named from the Braidwood group because [they believe] it promotes homosexuality and unmarried sex … but the goal was always to undermine the Affordable Care Act,' Mandisa Moore-O'Neal, the executive director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, told HuffPost. 'Braidwood really drives home how certain groups — trans folks, queer folks, people vulnerable to HIV — are the lowest hanging fruit and are often used as a placeholder for something that's going to impact a much larger group.' Without access to no-cost PrEP, experts warn there could be an increase in HIV infections, especially as Kennedy continues to decimate numerous offices in HHS tasked with overseeing HIV prevention, surveillance and research and implementing strategies to address disparities across race, gender and sexual orientation. Experts caution that Kennedy's overhaul of HHS has already threatened the decades of progress made toward ending the HIV epidemic domestically and abroad. An end to the 'PrEP Mandate' would result in an additional 2,083 new HIV infections a year in the United States, up from a base of 28,200 infections, according to a 2023 report from Yale University. A single new HIV infection would cost, at minimum, $420,000 for a lifetime of treatment, the study found. The elimination of coverage for preventive care would spell trouble for dozens of preventive health care services beyond just PrEP, including statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, depression and suicide risk screenings, and various pregnancy screenings. 'The fear is that this will be a big step backwards in reducing the burden of cancer,' Scott Ramsey, a cancer researcher and physician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, told STAT News. Even a $20 copay can deter people from getting cancer screenings, he said, which could lead to people being diagnosed with cancer at more advanced stages of the disease. Many people will be in limbo while they wait for a ruling on the case, which is expected in June. 'What does that mean for someone at the end of year? What about for a queer couple who has been planning pregnancy and hopes to start insemination in July and was counting on being able to use their insurance to have certain early pregnancy screenings? What is the impact on Black women's ability to get cancer screenings?' Moore-O'Neal asked, referring to the possibility that the court could rule in favor of Braidwood. 'The impacts are dire.' Former task force members are also concerned that Kennedy could make changes to the group that jeopardize its neutrality or ability to make science-based recommendations. In a letter to the health secretary, 34 former members warned that 'a loss in this case may mean millions of Americans will be deprived of access to free, effective preventive care.' 'We want to be sure that there isn't an unintended outcome of the newly announced reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which damages the Task Force's ability to help prevent chronic disease through primary care services,' the letter read.
