WASHINGTON — During a court hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court appeared poised to support a significant provision of the Affordable Care Act related to preventive care. Key conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the liberal justices, expressed doubts about the claims that the method Obamacare uses to determine which preventive services must be covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.
The outcome of this case could have profound effects on the preventive care requirements mandated by the law, affecting approximately 150 million Americans. Services and medications potentially impacted include those for heart disease prevention, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs, and medications to lower breast cancer risks for women deemed high-risk.
The plaintiffs in the case contended that the requirements for covering these services and medications are unconstitutional since the volunteer board of medical experts making these recommendations lacked Senate approval. They also presented religious and procedural objections concerning certain mandates.
Continuing the defense of the mandate, the Trump administration argued before the court, despite former President Donald Trump’s previous critiques of the law. The Department of Justice pointed out that these board members do not necessitate Senate approval as they are subject to removal by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
It appears that a majority of the justices might lean towards supporting the government’s stance. Justice Kavanaugh highlighted an absence of legal evidence suggesting the board possesses the independent authority that would require Senate confirmation, while Justice Barrett critiqued the plaintiffs for an overly broad interpretation of the board’s duties.
Justice Elena Kagan remarked, “We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” reflecting on previous court rulings.
Conversely, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed to side with the plaintiffs and indicated the possibility of remanding the case to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This step could result in unresolved questions regarding the coverage status of various medications and services.
A judicial determination is anticipated by the end of June.
The Supreme Court heard the case following the appeals court’s decision to overturn some of the preventive care coverage mandates, aligning with Christian employers and Texas residents. These groups argued they should not be compelled to offer comprehensive insurance coverage for medications aimed at HIV prevention and certain cancer screenings.
The challenging parties were represented by the established conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, noted for representing Trump in a separate high court case concerning his eligibility for the 2024 ballot.
Notably, not all preventive care provisions were threatened by this ruling. A 2023 report by the nonprofit KFF indicated that essential screenings like mammography and cervical cancer tests would continue to be covered without additional costs to the consumer.
The appeals court declared that these coverage mandates were unconstitutional, attributing their origin to a body, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, whose members are neither nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate.
Home SCOTUS seems poised to support Obamacare's coverage rule