A federal appeals court will hear arguments over whether former President Barack Obama’s health care law should fully cover certain types of preventive care, including HIV prevention and some cancer screenings.
NEW ORLEANS– A federal appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments Monday on whether former President Barack Obama’s health care law requires full insurance coverage for certain types of preventive care, including HIV prevention and some cancer screenings.
A federal judge in Texas said last year that this is not the case. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth ruled that some of the 2010 law’s preventive care requirements are unconstitutional. If his ruling is upheld, it could impact coverage and costs for between 100 and 150 million people, according to analyzes by health care advocates.
The coverage mandates will remain in effect for the time being. O’Connor’s ruling applied nationwide but was stayed pending arguments at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Not all preventive care was threatened by O’Connor’s ruling. An analysis by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered at no out-of-pocket costs because the task force recommended them before the health care law took effect in March 2010.
The Biden administration will appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, plaintiffs in the case have filed a cross-appeal that could broaden O’Connor’s ruling and jeopardize more preventive care mandates, according to the advocacy group United States of Care.
Coverage requirements are determined by recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is made up of volunteers. O’Connor ruled that enforcing the recommendations was “unlawful” and a violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which sets out how government officials can be appointed.
Monday’s arguments mark the latest in more than a decade of conservative efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. O’Connor is the judge who struck down the entire law in 2018, a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court.