Braidwood v. Becerra

(sigh) it's been nearly another full year since the last time I wrote about the seemingly never-ending Braidwood v. Becerra lawsuit which threatens to not only end many of the ACA's zero-cost preventative services, but which could also throw all sorts of regulatory authority into turmoil depending on what precedents it sets.

Here (once again) is Sabrina Corlette's refresher on this case and what's at stake:

On March 30, 2023, a federal district court judge issued a sweeping ruling, enjoining the government from enforcing Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements that health plans cover and waive cost-sharing for high-value preventive services. This decision, which wipes out the guarantee of benefits that Americans have taken for granted for 13 years, now takes immediate effect.

It's been another several months since the last time I wrote about the seemingly never-ending Braidwood v. Becerra lawsuit which threatens to not only end many of the ACA's zero-cost preventative services, but which could also throw all sorts of regulatory authority into turmoil depending on what precedents it sets.

Here's Sabrina Corlette's refresher on this case and what's at stake:

On March 30, 2023, a federal district court judge issued a sweeping ruling, enjoining the government from enforcing Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements that health plans cover and waive cost-sharing for high-value preventive services. This decision, which wipes out the guarantee of benefits that Americans have taken for granted for 13 years, now takes immediate effect.

It's been a whopping nine months since the last time I wrote anything about the seemingly never-ending Braidwood v. Becerra lawsuit which threatens to not only end many of the ACA's zero-cost preventative services, but which could also throw all sorts of regulatory authority into turmoil depending on what precedents it sets.

Over at CHIRblog, Sabrina Corlette has a refresher on this case and what's at stake:

On March 30, 2023, a federal district court judge issued a sweeping ruling, enjoining the government from enforcing Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements that health plans cover and waive cost-sharing for high-value preventive services. This decision, which wipes out the guarantee of benefits that Americans have taken for granted for 13 years, now takes immediate effect.

Last week Amy Lotven of Inside Health Policy noted that the 5th Circuit Court panel was trying to come up with some sort of stopgap solution to the ongoing Braidwood v. Becerra lawsuit until such time as the case winds its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

As Lotven reported:

One judge on the federal appeals court panel considering whether an order blocking HHS from enforcing the Affordable Care Act preventive services coverage mandate should continue to be partially stayed through its appeal is urging the parties to pursue a workable resolution, and legal expert Tim Jost says the panel appeared open to the government’s suggestion the court issue a narrow solution that only applies to insurers in Texas.

When we last checked in on the Braidwood v. Becerra federal lawsuit, there was a lot of confusion as to exactly which preventative services mandated by the Affordable Care Act to be covered at no out-of-pocket (OOP) charge to enrollees were supposed to be stricken and which weren't.

As a refresher, here's where the list of services comes from, via the Kaiser Family Foundation:

There's been another development in the long, winding saga of the Kelley / Braidwood v. Becerra federal lawsuit, which seeks to strike down the Affordable Care Act's preventative services provisions requiring health insurance providers to cover a long list of preventative healthcare services at no out of pocket cost to enrollees.

For the full backstory behind this case (and why a plaintiff win against the government here would be far more devastating than "just" the specific provisions being struck down), read my prior post (with many updates) on the case.

The most recent development prior to today came on March 30th, 2023:

Judge Reed O'Connor STRIKES DOWN a major provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover a vast amount of preventive care cost-free (contraception, cancer screening, PrEP, a ton of pregnancy-related care). The ruling applies nationwide. https://t.co/wL26vkIPsd

via the Maryland Insurance Administration:

Consumer Advisory: Maryland-issued health insurance policies are not impacted by Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra; preventative services, including PrEP, are still required to be covered

​​​BALTIMORE – Health insurance policies (including HMO plans) issued in Maryland are not impacted by a recent ruling by a federal judge in Texas that health plans do not have to cover certain preventive services.

My ongoing Braidwood v. Becerra post has grown so long and has had so many updates that it was becoming unwieldy, so I started a new post.

Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox posted a thread on Twitter yesterday which gives an brief overview of which of the preventative services required to be covered at no cost to the enrollee by the Affordable Care Act are actually threatened by yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor.

Before I get to that, it's important to clarify where the list of services comes from. Again, via the Kaiser Family Foundation:

via the Michigan Dept. of Insurance & Financial Services:

(LANSING, MICH) State of Michigan health leaders are advising Michiganders that a Texas federal judge’s decision in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Xavier Becerra does not currently change the preventive care to which they are entitled under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Though the Braidwood ruling does not take immediate effect, and proceedings are ongoing, this case could ultimately have long-term impacts on the ACA and the health of Americans nationwide.