The US Supreme Court has retained a key element of the affordable care law, which helps to ensure that health insurers cover preventive care without patient costs.
The judges overturned the decision of the lower court that the special group for preventive services of the United States, which, according to the 2010 Act, plays a major role in the choice of what services will be covered by members who have not been appointed validly.
The lawsuit began in Texas, where two business and persons owned by Christians claim that the health insurance plans they buy should not cover medical tests and medicines that they object to religious grounds, such as the preparation of the HIV prevention drug. But the legal question at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether the working group was so powerful that, according to the Constitution, its members should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Justice Brett Cavano wrote about the majority of 6-3 that the Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove members of the working group as desired and can review his recommendations before they come into force.
“The members of the working group are interchangeable by the HHS secretary and their recommendations can be reviewed by the secretary before they come into force,” he writes. “So the members of the working group are controlled and directed by the secretary, who in turn responds to the president, keeping the command chain.”
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has always appointed members of the Operational Group and ratified their recommendations, said Meribet Musumci, a teacher in health policy and management at the School of Public Health at the University of George Washington.
But the decision has been expanded to this organ, clarifying that the secretary can also remove members and block the recommendations, she said.
Given that Kennedy has recently fired all 17 initial members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert who issues health recommendations, Musumes said that “there is a reason to worry.”
The secretary has never been overlapping access to preventive services, which has been shown to help people remain healthy, nor the secretary “tried to form membership in our expert panel in any way,” said Michael Silverein Working Group Chairman in an email to the United States today.
“While HHS secretary has long had power over USPSTF, they have historically acted only to increase access to preventive care, from time to time exceeding the evidence to provide improved coverage for preventive services,” he said. “Given our shared focus on the prevention of cancer and chronic diseases, we certainly hope that the secretary will allow our current work to continue as unobstructed as before.”
A surprising move? RFK -Jr. Vaccine Commission voted to recommend RSV shot for babies
Catherine Hampstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non -profit goal for health, praised the Supreme Court’s decision, as this means that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care, such as mental health screening, cancer screening, Sti -testing and important medicines.
But she also called the decision both “end and beginning”.
“This is the end of the challenge, but now it is the beginning of something that will unfold where we will see someone exercise control over this expert panel, who has many strong opinions about … many aspects of medical help,” she said.
More details: The Supreme Court rejects the conservative challenge for Obamacare’s health coverage
If Kennedy plans to focus on the special preventive services group, it is unclear what preventive services can be at risk, Musumes said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final solution. Even if the secretary requires it to impose a new recommendation or cancel existing ones, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service.
The plans for the health insurance of America, the Commercial Association, representing health insurance companies, plans to close a close legal process, but confirms that the court’s decision will not affect the existing coverage, according to an email in the United States today.
Contribution: Maureen Gripem and Bart Jansen, USA today; Reuters.
Adriana Rodriguez can be found at adrodriguez@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared in the USA Today: Obamacare Supreme Court: What does it mean to RFK JR.