WASHINGTON – A Texas federal judge on Thursday blocked enforcement of a no-fee law preventive health care mandates included in the Affordable Care Act, sparking the latest legal fight over Obamacare and threatening to restrict access to HIV prevention pills, cancer screenings and other services.
American District Justice Reed O’Connor ruled that preemptive requirements set by a federal task force violated the law because panel members had not been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. More than 150 million people benefit from this coverage in general, according to government estimates.
“Providing insurance coverage for screenings and interventions that prevent disease saves lives, period,” said Jack Resneck, president of the American Medical Association. “Invalidating this provision puts at risk the tools that doctors use every day to improve the health of our patients.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed and could eventually go to the Supreme Court. Experts predict that insurers are unlikely to drop coverage for the services if the ruling is upheld, but they could require patients to pay for them.
What was O’Connor’s decision in the latest Obamacare case?
- The U.S. District Court has barred nationwide the requirement that insurers cover certain preventive services. These mandates were challenged by Texas businesses who said the requirements violated their religious beliefs.
- O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said the preventive services task force that developed those recommendations was not legally appointed and therefore its recommendations were invalid. These recommendations have led to free access to screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer and diabetes, among others.
- The Biden administration will likely appeal the decision, and O’Connor’s decision could be put on hold while the appeal process plays out. A Justice Department spokesperson said officials were reviewing the decision.
- Thursday’s ruling was no surprise: O’Connor ruled against preventive mandates on the merits last fall, but had until now not resolved the practical outcome – or remedy – of his decision. O’Connor has repeatedly found violations of the Affordable Care Act, including a 2018 ruling that the law’s coverage mandate was unconstitutional. This decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2021.
What preventative care is involved in this case?
The business owners who filed the suit objected, on religious grounds, to coverage of contraception as well as testing for sexually transmitted diseases. But the Preventive Services Task Force included many other procedures and treatments in the list of preventative care that insurers must cover at no extra cost, including screening for diabetes and certain types of cancer.
Another major issue in this case was the debate over drugs which prevent HIV transmission, known as PrEP medications. PrEP, short for pre-exposure prophylaxis, is a medication that reduces the risk of HIV infection during exposure.
Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, as well as transgender women who have sex with men, are among these groups. most at risk of HIV infection, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Black and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately affected by the virus.
That sparked a swift response from several medical groups and the White House.
“This case pits patients against their doctors,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “This is yet another attack on Americans’ ability to make their own choices about health care.”
Contributors: Maureen Groppe, Cady Stanton
