Supreme Court to hear case challenging Obamacare’s preventive coverage

The Supreme Court said Friday it will review the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventive care, including cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception, to millions of Americans.

The case puts the law, commonly known as Obamacare, in the crosshairs once again and follows several challenges in recent years by conservatives hoping to overturn it, as well as a landmark 2012 ruling by the justices upholding its legality.

In Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc., a Christian-owned business and six individuals challenged the preventive-care provision because it requires health-care plans to cover pre-exposure medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among certain at-risk populations. The plaintiffs argue that the medications “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior,” which conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The plaintiffs also contend that an expert committee that mandates the preventive care health-care plans must offer is unconstitutional because its members are not appointed by the president with Senate approval, in violation of the appointments clause.

A Texas district court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – which set the coverage requirements – was unconstitutional because its members had not been confirmed by the Senate and that all mandates it had imposed since 201o were invalid.

The government appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling with one major caveat. The 5th Circuit did not invalidate the task force’s mandates universally, only as they applied to the plaintiffs.

Both the plaintiffs and the government asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying the lower court’s rulings could allow other plaintiffs to seek a nationwide ruling that would invalidate the preventive-care provision.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who defended the case on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, warned in court filings that such a decision could be catastrophic, putting preventive care out of reach for many Americans who have come to rely on it.

“Such a remedy would upend healthcare coverage for millions of Americans,” Prelogar wrote.

It is unclear what position the federal government will take when President-elect Donald Trump takes office this month.

The plaintiffs wrote in their filing to the Supreme Court that they also objected to mandates in the preventive-care provision requiring plans to cover all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, including contraception that the plaintiffs contend induces abortions.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case later this year.