The Week (US)

A legal assault on preventive care

-

A federal judge in Texas has “struck down a major part of the Affordable Care Act,” in a ruling that could “worsen health-care costs for millions of Americans,” said Matt Ford in The New Republic. Judge Reed O’Connor ruled unconstitu­tional a provision requiring insurers to fully cover an array of preventive-care measures, such as prenatal care, mammograms, and screenings for other common forms of cancer. It’s the fourth time O’Connor has ruled parts of the ACA unconstitu­tional; in 2018, he struck down the entire act with a ruling “so prepostero­us it was widely condemned by legal experts” and overturned 7-2 by the Supreme Court. This time he sided with a Christian business owner who objected to his employees’ plans covering PrEP drugs that prevent HIV transmissi­on. O’Connor ruled that because decisions about mandatory preventive-care coverage are made by a panel of experts who aren’t appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate, those mandates violate the Constituti­on.

“The list of services that could become out of reach for many people is long,” said Pema Levy in Mother Jones. Nobody’s coverage will change immediatel­y; for one thing, the Biden administra­tion has requested a stay pending appeals. But if the ruling stands, health insurers would no longer have to fully cover prenatal care, cholestero­llowering drugs, STD screenings, or cancer screenings such as colonoscop­ies. That would “have a disastrous outcome for health care in the U.S.,” said Lisa Jarvis in Bloomberg. Preventive care saves hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and numerous studies have shown most people will forgo it if it costs even a $25 co-pay.

O’Connor is unlikely to “have the final word,” said Ian Millhiser in Vox. Still, if this case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it may “get even worse for patients.” There are three government bodies that set standards for preventive care, and O’Connor invalidate­d only one of them. He said “binding precedents” tied his hands in the case of the other two, which set guidelines for vaccinatio­ns and some preventive care for women and children. But the Supreme Court has “the power to overrule those precedents.” And in a 2020 ruling, five of the court’s six conservati­ve justices questioned the power of all three bodies. So thanks to Republican­s’ “capture of the federal judiciary,” U.S. health coverage “could get worse— potentiall­y much worse—in the near future.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States