Supreme Court Agrees To Possibly Reinstate Obamacare Preventative Care Requirements

Let's see how this goes.

The Supreme Court has agreed to look into reinstating some preventative care coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the Associated Press reports.

Such requirements were struck down by the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with employers that claimed they shouldn’t be forced to give full insurance coverage for preventative measures like cancer and heart disease screenings.

While not all care was threatened—thanks to an analysis finding some screenings, such as mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, would still be covered—the ruling ate away at the program as challengers pushed religious and procedural objections. Four individuals and two small-owned businesses took a particular issue with preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV-prevention drug, prompting a lawsuit.

According to The Hill, PrEP, which has a 99% chance of reducing the risk of contracting HIV, has been available in the United States since 2012, and has grown in popularity over the past 10 years. The analysis found a number of services and medications that might not be covered as a result of the Obamacare ruling, including lung cancer screening and medications to lower the risk of breast cancer for high-risk women.

For now, the requirements remain in place except for the companies who issued litigation.

The lower-level court ruled that the coverage requirements were unconstitutionally adopted since they were handed down by the United States Preventive Services Task, which consists of members not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Department of Justice stepped in, asking the high court to do something about a measure that blocks preventative care. “The court’s holding jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy,” the Justice Department wrote.

Challengers, represented by the America First Legal Foundation and conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, agreed with the DOJ’s statements that the case should be taken up by the Supreme Court.

“The respondents disagree with the Solicitor General’s criticisms of the court of appeals’ opinion, as well as her dire predictions of what might happen if the court of appeals’ ruling is allowed to stand,” Mitchell wrote in response. “But none of those disagreements affect the trustworthiness of this case. The petition satisfies this Court’s criteria for certiorari and presents an issue of exceptional importance.”

The case is expected to be presented to the high court in spring 2025.