Unconstitutional Verdict on Preventive Care Task Force by Appeals Court
TL/DR –
A U.S. federal appeals court ruled that the preventive care task force, created under the 2010 health care law, is unconstitutional. The court held the ruling should apply specifically to the plaintiffs – a group of Texas businesses with religious objections to the preventive care requirements, which include covering the HIV preventative drug PrEP. However, the court did not block access to preventive health care for millions of Americans, and the case is likely to continue for an extended period.
Federal Court Rules Preventive Care Task Force Unconstitutional
On Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans ruled the preventive care task force, created under the 2010 health care law, as unconstitutional. The court, however, did not block access to preventive care for millions of Americans.
The plaintiffs in the case are Texas businesses with religious objections to the post-2010 preventive care requirements, which include provision of the HIV preventative drug PrEP and lung cancer screenings among other preventive measures.
Judges Don Willett, Cory Wilson, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez stated that relief should not extend beyond addressing the plaintiffs’ grievances. The businesses contended that the United States Preventive Services Task Force lacks the legitimacy to enforce binding decisions as its members aren’t confirmed through a congressional process.
Backed up by a 43-page ruling, the 5th Circuit agreed that the task force’s “unreviewable power” invalidates its members as principal officers of the United States. Additionally, the court disapproved Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra’s attempt to ratify the task force’s recommendations, claiming he lacks statutory authority to review or revise them.
Despite fears concerning the future of preventive services coverage, the ruling safeguards access to preventive care for millions of Americans for the time being, according to health research organization, KFF.
“At the moment, only the plaintiffs are exempt from providing coverage without cost-sharing. For everyone else, nothing has changed,” commented Laurie Sobel from KFF, adding that the case is likely to continue for quite some time.
Earlier in March 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated key portions of the 2010 law that required insurers to provide preventive health care services free of charge. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later argued that this requirement should remain unchanged while the lawsuit challenging mandatory coverage continues.
In its Friday opinion, the 5th Circuit Court saw “no basis for the universal injunction,” describing the lower court’s actions as an overreach beyond the scope required to address the plaintiffs’ grievances.
Although the court did not pass judgment on similar advisory bodies, it passed the issue back to O’Connor for consideration, stating that overlooking it could lead to future issues regarding unconstitutional challenges.
The case, known as Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, is awaiting further action.
—
Read More Health & Wellness News ; US News