The U.S. Supreme Court hears a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to provide coverage for preventive health services, including the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection. agreed to try the case.
The lawsuit, filed in 2020 by Braidwood Management, a Texas-based, Christian-owned company, challenges the ACA’s mandate to cover PrEP and sexually transmitted disease testing. They feel that it encourages immoral acts, including extramarital sex and premarital sex. So is homosexuality.
Braidwood argues that the requirement that its employee insurance plans cover preventive treatments like PrEP has forced it to tolerate conduct it deems objectionable, and that it has not provided such coverage. claimed to “encourage”[s] Homosexual acts, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, intravenous drug use. ”
The company also argued that requiring Christian employers to provide such coverage would violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits the government from imposing significant burdens on individuals’ religious activities. claims to infringe.
In September 2022, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a requirement to enroll in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan that covers PrEP violates the rights of Christian employers. handed down the verdict.
In March 2023, O’Connor went further, saying that insurance companies should follow recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Board, the agency that determines which preventive treatments should be covered, without passing additional costs on to health care. It was ruled that no. consumer.
The task force previously determined that PrEP is effective in preventing HIV and should be one of the treatments covered without requiring additional copayments.
As part of this ruling, Mr. O’Connor issued an injunction preventing the federal government from enforcing these recommendations, requiring that task force members be appointed directly by the president, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The task force ruled that the task force had been appointed illegally.
On appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld O’Connor’s decision. The judgment only blocked orders that applied to Braidwood and other similarly situated Christian employers.
However, both the plaintiffs and the Biden administration argue that the Fifth Circuit’s decision has triggered another party to file a lawsuit aimed at blocking the nationwide order, and both ask the Supreme Court to: Ta. bring up the incident.
The Supreme Court subsequently announced that it would consider the constitutionality of the ACA’s free coverage mandate.
A ruling overturning this mandate would not necessarily threaten the existence of the Affordable Care Act, but it could force Americans to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to cover the cost of preventive care.
In addition to PrEP, other examples of such treatments that will no longer be provided for free include cardiac statins, various cancer tests, prenatal nutritional supplements, and physical therapy to prevent falls for older Americans. .
The Biden administration estimates that these preventive treatments could save 10,000 to 20,000 lives a year.
PrEP is particularly important in reducing HIV and has been adopted by public health departments across the United States as an important tool to control the spread of the disease.
Although it does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), people taking PrEP are often required to undergo regular screening protocols to check their response to the drug.
These screenings also include testing for additional STIs, and people on PrEP are more likely to detect the presence of STI antibodies and receive timely treatment in the event of an infection.
If the high court decides to repeal the ACA’s free mandate, the extra costs of preventive services could force poor individuals, working-class Americans, and those living on fixed incomes to forego such care. It would mean that it must be done.
As a result, they can be at risk of suffering from potentially fatal illnesses or diseases that they might otherwise have been able to detect without spending tens of thousands of dollars, far exceeding the cost of preventive treatment. There is a possibility that it will not. Diagnosis is delayed.
Zachary Baron, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute, told CNN that “even if the copay is small, it doesn’t mean people will use these services.” . “They end up delaying things by trying to coordinate different bills.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
