Supreme Court to Consider Obamacare's Free PrEP, Other Preventive Healthcare

Millions of Americans may lose access to PrEP, cancer screenings, and more, depending on how the latest challenge to Obamacare plays out at the Supreme Court.

The court "said Friday it will review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's no-cost coverage mandates for certain preventive care services," CNN reported, "putting the landmark health care law in front of the justices again just as President-elect Donald Trump – who tried to repeal the law during his first presidency – returns to the White House."

CNN noted that the current challenge does not seek a wholesale repeal of the ACA, but the Supreme Court's ruling "could imperil access Americans have to cost-free preventive treatments and services, including HIV prevention medications, heart statins and various screenings,"

The report explained that an earlier ruling by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the ACA's requirements for no-cost coverage for PrEP, heart statins, and various screenings "violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution" because those requirements were "based on the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force," the members of which "are not appointed by the president with Senate confirmation."

CNN also noted that the earlier "ruling only blocked the mandates as applied to the challengers of the specific case, a Texas business and several individuals."

"Among the other no-cost coverage mandates that are put at risk by the 5th Circuit ruling are prenatal nutritional supplements, physical therapy for older Americans to prevent falls and lung cancer screenings that, according to the Biden administration, could save the lives of 10,000 to 20,000 Americans a year," the news outlet detailed, but the challenge was motivated, at least in part, by "moral objections to covering the HIV prevention medications" by Braidwood, the Texas business mentioned above.

"The company also objected to paying for insurance that covered screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and other treatments related to conduct the employer morally opposed."

In urging the Supreme Court to take up the case, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the "Court's review is warranted because the court of appeals has held an Act of Congress unconstitutional and its legal rationale would inflict immense practical harms," including the potential to "disrupt a key part of the ACA that provides healthcare protections for millions of Americans."

If the no-cost mandates are rescinded, CNN said, healthcare disparities affecting marginalized communities that those mandates eased might worsen once again.