Loading...
Loading...
Browse all stories on DeepNewz
VisitWhat will be the Supreme Court's decision on ACA's no-cost preventive care coverage by end of 2025?
Uphold ACA coverage as constitutional • 25%
Strike down ACA coverage as unconstitutional • 25%
Remand to lower court for further proceedings • 25%
Other • 25%
The official ruling published by the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Review 5th Circuit's Ruling on ACA's No-Cost Preventive Care Coverage
Jan 10, 2025, 11:53 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) no-cost coverage requirements for certain preventive care services, including cancer screenings, heart statins, and HIV drugs. This decision follows an appeal by the Biden administration against a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with employers arguing that they cannot be compelled to provide full insurance coverage for these services. The lower court's decision was based on the contention that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, responsible for recommending these services, violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause due to its members not being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The case, Braidwood Management, Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra, could impact the availability of preventive care services that have been covered under the ACA since its enactment in 2010. The Supreme Court's review is expected to address whether the structure of the Task Force is constitutional and whether the coverage requirements should be reinstated.
View original story
Remand to lower court • 25%
Modify mandate • 25%
Strike down mandate • 25%
Uphold mandate • 25%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
All services maintained • 25%
Some services modified • 25%
Most services removed • 25%
Complete overhaul • 25%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Full cost-sharing introduced • 25%
No change • 25%
Partial coverage introduced • 25%
Coverage removed • 25%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
Dismiss the case • 25%
Rule in favor of Planned Parenthood • 25%
Rule in favor of South Carolina • 25%
Other outcome • 25%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
No significant change • 25%
Decrease in states restricting funding • 25%
Increase in states restricting funding • 25%
Mixed outcomes • 25%
Rule in favor of Wisconsin • 25%
Other outcome • 25%
Dismiss the case • 25%
Rule in favor of Catholic Charities • 25%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
New independent appointment process • 25%
Other • 25%
Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation • 25%
No change in appointment process • 25%