If the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case and overturns the pillar, this could have a widespread impact on out-of-pocket health care costs, including costs for the HIV-prevention pill, known as PrEP.

If the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case and overturns the pillar, this could have a widespread impact on out-of-pocket health care costs, including costs for the HIV-prevention pill, known as PrEP.

A federal appeals court on Friday found unconstitutional a key component of the Affordable Care Act that grants a health task force the effective authority to require that insurers both cover an array of preventive health interventions and screenings and refrain from imposing out-of-pocket costs for them.

The lawsuit centered on the objections of a coalition of small businesses in Texas to the requirement that they cover a drug for HIV prevention, known as PrEP, in their employee health plans. The appeals court did not, however, overturn the related ACA pillar; the practical, immediate impacts of its ruling apply narrowly to the plaintiffs in this case.

Legal experts expect that the case, Braidwood v. Becerra, will ultimately advance to the Supreme Court, given that it poses crucial questions about the constitutionality of the health task force’s effective authority and that of other federal health bodies. Additionally, the current court has demonstrated interest in cases concerning the delegation of congressional authority to agencies and experts.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    76·
    5 months ago

    The lawsuit centered on the objections of a coalition of small businesses

    One business and a few individuals apparently.

    From another source:

    The ruling from U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor focuses on claims from Braidwood Management, a Christian for-profit corporation owned by Steven Hotze, that its rights were violated by the mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    And that complaint is:

    But Hotze, whose company provides health insurance to about 70 employees, argued that offering coverage for PrEP drugs encouraged “homosexual behavior” and violated “his religious beliefs by making him complicit in encouraging those behaviors.”

    So some old fashion christian homophobic and even heterosexual shaming is the basis for this law suit.