Richard H. Hughes, IV, Member of the Firm in the Health Care & Life Sciences practice, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was featured in a video titled “Payer Responsibility for Preventive Services May Hinge on Braidwood Decision,” where he responded to questions from Julia Bonavitacola of The American Journal of Managed Care®.

Following is a transcript:

What can be done to mitigate the effects of the lawsuit should the lower court decision be upheld?

Well, I think it will be important that payers continue to provide coverage of recommended preventive services, and to do it really consistent with a lot of the guidance that we've seen from CMS over the years. We've seen clarification on things like, if a patient is recommended to receive a colonoscopy that the subsequent pathology for any biopsies during that procedure is going to be covered and the patient won't have out-of-pocket costs. And so for procedures like that or screening tests like that, where there are what we call ancillary services, there could be a lot of confusion if payers do not consistently provide that kind of coverage, not to mention the fact that the the tests and the screenings themselves need to have coverage.

Services like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] for HIV, if that coverage requirement is displaced, we may see unequal coverage across various forms of health insurance. We've really, from the standpoint of public policy, worked very hard to get to this place with the provision of the Affordable Care Act and then all of the work that CMS has done to really clarify what must be covered by health insurance plans. And so this really does jeopardize, I would say, the evenness of coverage across the United States. And inevitably, if we see variability in coverage, that's going to be confusing for providers. It's going to be confusing for patients.

I've certainly seen the evidence that when recommendations are not clear, when coverage is not clear, it really dramatically impacts the ability of a provider to make a clear recommendation to a patient as to the preventive care they should receive. In turn, that makes the patient less likely, if they don't have the confidence, to receive the service. And so it really does threaten access to preventive care, and it means that we could ultimately see worse outcomes in this country that were entirely preventable.

What is the likely outcome of the lawsuit?

I think it is, as with most cases before the court, difficult to determine what the likelihood or the prospects are of the outcome either way. I will say, if the Supreme Court follows its prior precedent on the severability doctrine, which is very relevant in this case, because there is a piece of the statute that authorizes the US Preventive Services Task Force—it says they're to be independent and not subject to political pressure—and that is language that in the view of the courts, certainly in the view of the lower courts in this case, has meant that they view the task force as not being politically accountable. And so the question is, will the court be willing to sever that language so that the task force can be viewed as and, in actuality, be independent and not subject to political influence. And so if they're willing to follow prior precedent, this law will survive and we'll continue to see the requirement remain in effect.

Jump to Page

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.