Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Recent Litigation Challenges the Affordable Care Act Preventive Services Requirement

Client Alert, News Article

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been met with numerous legal challenges. The most recent legal challenge, Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, could affect millions of people covered by private health insurance.

Which section of ACA is this litigation challenging?

Section 2713 provides that private health insurers must cover a range of preventive services without cost sharing (deductible, co-pays, etc.). These preventive services include routine immunizations, preventive services for women and children, and more. They also include preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which is used to prevent HIV; contraceptives; Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infection screenings and counseling1. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a body of experts in disease prevention commissioned by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that makes the recommendations regarding which preventive services will be covered at no out-of-pocket cost to the patient2.

Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra

In Texas, two Christian-owned businesses and individuals argued that the ACA’s no-cost sharing preventive services mandate is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra are specifically challenging the requirement to cover “PrEP, HPV vaccines, contraceptive services, and screening and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted infections and drug use”3 citing (1) a violation of their religious freedoms and (2) the unconstitutionality of USPSTF.

On September 8, 2022, the District Court judge, O’Connor, ruled partly in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the district court asked for additional briefs before issuing its final decision.

What are the implications if the court rules in favor of Braidwood Management Inc.?

As we wait for the remedy suggestions from the district court, the impact of this case cannot be overlooked. This ruling poses significant risk to preventive services coverage. If the court rules in favor of Braidwood Management Inc., the federal government may not be able to require preventive services at no cost to individuals with private health insurance plans. Although this case is targeting sexual and reproductive health measures, the implications of rolling back such mandates could affect the broad range of preventive services covered in the ACA such as cancer screenings, tobacco cessation, unhealthy alcohol use in teens, and much more. Finally, the loss of preventive services coverage will result in shifting costs from insurers to today's 167 million privately insured individuals4.

For more information, please contact Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/preventive-services-covered-by-private-health-plans/
  2. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/
  3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12053267287274815900&q=Braidwood+Management+Inc.+v.+Becerra&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1
  4. https://oneill.law.georgetown.edu/coverage-for-preventive-health-services-at-risk-in-new-court-decision/

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.