Court reverses judge’s block of some Obamacare no-cost preventive care coverage mandates nationwide

A conservative appeals court on Friday reversed aspects of a ruling that would have blocked nationwide Affordable Care Act requirements that certain preventive services be covered by insurers at no cost, including several cancer screenings and a popular heart medication.

A conservative appeals court on Friday reversed aspects of a ruling that would have blocked nationwide Affordable Care Act requirements that certain preventive services be covered by insurers at no cost, including several cancer screenings and a popular heart medication. However, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial judge’s conclusions that some of the no-cost coverage mandates were unlawful because the federal task force that recommended what preventive services should be covered under the mandates violated the Constitution. The case centers on the recommendations for no-cost coverage mandates that have been issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force, as well as those issued by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and by the Health Resources and Services Administration. US District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas had previously struck down the recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force that were not already in place at the time the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, agreeing with the challengers’ argument that the task force violated the Constitution’s appointments clause. Had his ruling gone into effect nationwide, it would have invalidated the no-cost coverage mandates for some cancer screenings, the use of statins to prevent cardiovascular disease, and counseling referrals for pregnant and postpartum women at increased risk of depression, as well as for the HIV-prevention measures known as PrEP. (O’Connor also stuck down the PrEP mandate on the claim that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) With its new ruling, the 5th Circuit – which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi – set a precedent that will control for any other case brought in those states where the challengers are also seeking exemption from the mandates under the same appointments clause claim. That means that although the 5th Circuit significantly narrowed the scope of the current case, it could still have a major impact on the law’s reach for millions of Americans.