Richard H. Hughes, IV, Member of the Firm in the Health Care & Life Sciences practice, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in Inside Health Policy, in “Biden Admin Finalizes NBPP, MA Pay Rules Ahead of Departure,” by Amy Lotven, Dorothy Mills-Gregg, Jessica Karins. (Read the full version – subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
Braidwood
The fate of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that insurers provide cost-free coverage of screenings and other services deemed appropriate by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) now rests with the Supreme Court, which late Friday agreed to the Justice Department's request that it review a circuit court decision that put the mandate in question.
The Justice Department last September petitioned the high court to review the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Braidwood v. Becerra that found the structure of the USPSTF violates the constitution's Appointments Clause as well as the court's refusal to fix the issue by severing problematic language.
The high court did not take up the Braidwood plaintiffs' petition to review a lower court ruling that shot down their claim the ACA's women's health and vaccine coverage mandates also violate the Constitution's Delegations Clause, which a source tracking the case expected since the court previously agreed to take up a different case involving the clause.
Richard Hughes IV of Epstein Becker Green says under the Supreme Court's severability doctrine it would seem they would uphold the role of USPST. But the court is unpredictable and the trend toward curtailing the role of experts and the administrative state could win the day, he said.