FAQs Provide Guidance on Preventive Care

The Departments of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services have jointly issued FAQs responding to the district court decision in Braidwood v. Bacerra that invalidated certain preventive care coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that are based on “A” or “B” recommendations by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In the FAQs, the Departments state their disagreement with the Braidwood decision, noting that the Department of Justice has filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay of the ruling. The FAQs also provide guidance with respect to preventive care in view of the decision, including:

• Only recommendations and changes in the USPSTF’s A and B recommendations since the Affordable Care Act was enacted on March 23, 2010, are affected by the decision. Requirements based on recommendations in effect as of that date are in effect.
• The ruling has no effect on preventive care requirements based on the recommendations and actions by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Full coverage of a preventive care service may be based on ACIP or HRSA guidance alone. Although not the focus of the guidance, the FAQs confirm that coverage for an appropriately recommended COVID-19 vaccine needs to be provided with 15 business days after the recommendation is made.
• Plans will need to consider other applicable laws in determining whether to implement mid-year changes based on the court’s decision. If a plan ceases to cover the full cost of certain preventive care services, it must meet applicable notice requirements.
• High-deductible health plans may continue to provide pre-deductible coverage for a broad range of preventive care, which includes services with a current A or B recommendation by the USPSTF.

The guidance encourages plans to continue to cover preventive care services that have been added or augmented by USPSTF actions since the ACA was enacted. These recommendations have, for example, made changes that expand certain cancer screenings.

The request for a stay might have greater significance for recommendations that have been removed from the list. If the A or B recommendations in place on March 23, 2010, are now in effect, plans may be required to cover various cholesterol screenings and other services that have since lost their A or B recommendation.

Given the uncertainty that surrounds the Braidwood decision, health plan sponsors and insurers may seek to track developments in and around the case before making any changes in their plan designs. The FAQs themselves presage that the Departments will issue additional guidance on preventive care coverage requirements in view of the court’s ruling.

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.