Court Invalidates Certain Preventive Care Requirements

A federal district court in Texas has invalidated and enjoined actions by federal agencies on and after March 23, 2010—when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted—to implement the ACA requirement that health plans and insurance policies cover the full cost of in-network preventive care that carries an A or B rating by the USPSTF. The court’s ruling broadly applies its earlier decision finding the ACA’s delegation of authority to the USPSTF violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The USPSTF issues recommendations on a range of preventive services, including breast cancer screenings, BRCA-related genetic testing, colorectal cancer screenings, and statin prescriptions to prevent cardiovascular disease.

Health plan sponsors and insurers may choose to take a cautious approach in evaluating how the court’s decision affects coverage under their plans for various reasons, including:

• The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ruling may be stayed pending a determination on appeal.
• The ruling formally applies to actions taken on or after March 23, 2010, which means that recommendations in effect prior to that date may continue to apply.
• The ruling leaves intact the preventive care requirements that are based on guidelines maintained by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (which include, for example, COVID-19 vaccinations) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (which include various guidelines pertaining to children, adolescents, and women, including contraception).
• Although used as a measure for ACA purposes, the recommendations made by the USPSTF are generally intended to provide guidance on sound medical practice. Plan sponsors may wish to consider the extent to which continued coverage for the screenings and other preventive measures that carry an A or B USPSTF recommendation may improve the health of plan members and produce a net cost-savings for the plan and plan sponsor.

As is often the case, it will be worth watching for further developments on this case and possible guidance on the decision’s effect, if any, on other matters, such as the scope of preventive care that a high-deductible health plan may offer on pre-deductible basis.

Copyright © 2024 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.