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/

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.

Protecting Your Image in the Age of AI-Generated “Deepfakes”

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed how we create and consume digital content, but it also poses significant risks. Among the most troubling developments in AI is the proliferation of AI-generated fraudulent content, often called “deepfakes”.