the case: kennedy v. braidwood management, inc.

formerly known as braidwood management v. becerra, the case now titled kennedy v. braidwood management, inc., challenges the affordable care act (aca) mandate requiring insurers to cover certain preventative health services without co-pays [[3]].

at issue: us preventive services task force (uspstf) authority

the core of the dispute revolves around whether commercial health plans must continue to cover category a & b preventative services recommended by the u.s. preventive services task force (uspstf).

braidwood management argues that uspstf members wield too much unreviewable authority, contending that they are principal officers under the constitution and therefore require senate confirmation, which they do not receive.

the plaintiffs argue that because uspstf members aren’t senate confirmed, their decisions are void.

the biden administration,however,maintains that uspstf members are inferior officers,adequately supervised by the hhs secretary,thus validating their recommendations.

court rulings so far

• district court: ruled that all preventative-care coverage requirements established by the task force as 2010 are invalid.
• u.s. court of appeals: upheld the district court decision but limited its scope,concluding that hhs should only be prohibited from enforcing the preventive-services coverage requirements against braidwood management itself,not the entire healthcare industry.

potential impact

the supreme court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences:

• if the supreme court sides with the district court: insurers could opt out of covering services recommended or updated by the uspstf as 2010. this includes screenings for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45–49, depression screenings for adolescents, and hiv prevention medications like prep, effectively freezing preventive care standards as they existed in 2010.
• if they side with the appeals court: only braidwood employees would be excluded from getting coverage for preventive health services.
• the supreme court might even: throw out all the currently mandatory coverage for preventive health services.

without mandated coverage, many insurers will reintroduce co-pays or exclude certain preventive services altogether, causing decreased use of preventive care resulting in delayed diagnoses, higher healthcare costs, and widened health disparities.

the solicitor general’s role

it’s unclear whether kennedy’s solicitor general will pull punches during oral arguments, potentially influenced by guidance from former president trump or disagreement with the post-2010 uspstf decisions.

there is a risk that some health department political appointees are more interested in keeping their jobs than doing them.

timeline

the aca’s preventive service mandates will remain in effect until the supreme court makes their decision later this summer.

oral arguments in the case will be held monday, with a decision expected this summer.

faq

• what is the case about? it challenges the aca’s requirement for insurers to cover certain preventative services without co-pays.
• who is challenging the aca? braidwood management, inc. is challenging the aca, arguing that the uspstf has too much unchecked authority.
• what could happen if the aca is struck down? insurers could drop coverage for many preventative services, leading to higher costs and reduced access to care.

related coverage

court to hear challenge to aca preventative-care coverage – scotusblog [[2]]