The United States Supreme Court upheld a key provision of Obamacare on Friday.
On June 27, the United States Supreme Court upheld a preventive care provision of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
The Supreme Court released a flurry of controversial decisions on the last day of its current session, including the decision on healthcare.
Reuters reported, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday preserved a key element of the Obamacare law that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings and HIV prevention medication at no cost to patients.
“The 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh reversed a lower court’s ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law formally called the Affordable Care Act has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, was not validly appointed.”
Many supporters of the preventive care measure of Obamacare had feared that a different Supreme Court ruling would have subjected preventive measures to co-pays and deductibles.
They believed that requiring patients to pay co-pays and deductibles would have dissuaded people from seeking life-saving tests.
Tens of millions of Americans rely on those preventive services, which also include heart disease medication and PrEP drugs that prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
Politico reported, “Opponents of ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force—which is chosen by the Secretary of Health and Human Services—was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to ‘principal officers’ under the Constitution’s appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.”
In 2020, several Christian plaintiffs and two small business owners sued in Texas, challenging the task force’s structure.
Many conservatives have sought to eliminate the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was former President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment.
The Supreme Court has turned down four challenges to the Affordable Care Act four times since 2013.
Obamacare made it illegal for insurance companies to turn down customers for preexisting conditions.
The law also required every American to sign up for medical insurance or face a financial penalty.
The logic behind the requirement is that if every American pays into insurance exchanges or private policies, costs could stay lower.
Before Obamacare, many people with serious ailments could not get insurance because companies did not want to take on the high costs of taking care of a sick or injured person.
Insurance companies are known for denying necessary care, even when someone has had the same insurance for years.
Elderly Americans with private insurance might also suffer if Obamacare is eliminated because it might allow private insurance companies to turn down people with preexisting conditions again.
What happens to the elderly person with dementia who has had their spouse’s insurance for generations?
If their spouse dies before them, would they be able to purchase private insurance or receive insurance from their former employer if insurance companies can bar people with preexisting conditions?
At certain jobs, a retiree can waive retirement insurance in case they must pick it up later after the death of their spouse.
As a result, Obamacare provided a lifeline, even for people not in an Affordable Care Act exchange.
Reuters added, “A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution’s ‘appointments clause,’ are ‘principal officers’ who must appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or ‘inferior officers’ not subject to these requirements.
“Kavanaugh wrote that because task force members are adequately supervised by the U.S. secretary of health and human services, members are ‘inferior officers’ and do not need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”
Writing for the majority, the Trump-appointed justice said, “Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so far, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the President’s supervision and direction. The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers’ design of the Appointments Clause.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the majority.
Politico added, “The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration’s defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government’s legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments.”
Although healthcare advocates were relieved that the Trump administration decided to defend the ACA, many expressed fears because the secretary is Robert F. Kennedy, and he has a history of promoting theories that baffle the scientific and medical communities.
Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University, said, “They really pointed out how much authority they think their secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the secretary is and his ideas about science and health. Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.”
