Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Upholds Coverage under the Affordable Care Act

Client Alert

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision upholding the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to make determinations about preventive services coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA mandates that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide coverage for over 100 preventive health services without cost-sharing.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the USPSTF can continue issuing recommendations for services that must be covered by health insurers without cost-sharing.

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. Inc., No. 24–316. (S.C. 2025), Braidwood Management (and others) argued that the USPSTF’s requirement to cover an HIV prevention medication violated its religious freedoms.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that had found the delegation of authority to the USPSTF violated the Appointments Clause. The Supreme Court reasoned that USPSTF members are “inferior officers” of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary instead of “principal officers”, despite their independence in the Affordable Care Act context.

As a result, the USPSTF can continue to recommend coverage for preventive services using a grading system. Per the ACA, for covered services with an 'A' or 'B' rating, health plans and insurance issuers offering group or individual insurance coverage “shall, at a minimum, provide coverage for and not impose any cost sharing requirements” for the “evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations” of the USPSTF. Covered services with an 'A' or 'B' rating include certain cancer screenings, risk-reducing breast cancer medications, statin medications reducing the risk of heart disease and stroke, and physical therapy to help the elderly avoid falls.

The practical coverage provisions of the ACA remain in effect, meaning over 150 million Americans can continue to access a wide range of preventive health care services each year at no cost to them. For providers, this ruling maintains the status quo, ensuring providers can continue to provide screenings and resulting treatment paid for by insurance without having to chase patients for cost sharing amounts.  

The case is Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt. Inc., No. 24–316. (S.C. 2025).

To learn more about this ruling and the ACA’s coverage of preventive services, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


Understanding Ohio House Bill 660: A Game-Changer for Student-Athletes

Ohio House Bill 660 is set to reshape Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements for student-athletes by allowing direct compensation from universities and providing greater financial opportunities while preserving amateur status. The bill simplifies the regulatory framework, introduces safeguards, and creates challenges and ethical considerations for stakeholders.

Effective December 12, 2024: Key Updates to Ohio Medicaid Rules for CPC and CMC Programs

Ohio Medicaid has amended rules for the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) and Comprehensive Maternal Care (CMC) programs, effective December 12, 2024. Key updates include expanded provider eligibility, stricter cultural competency training timelines, new clinical quality metrics, and changes to maternal care requirements.

Ohio Medicaid Extends Timely Filing Deadline Until 2025

The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) recently announced that it is extending its timely filing deadline to February 28, 2025. According to ODM, roughly 2% of providers have contract issues preventing them from meeting the previous timely filing deadline of December 1, 2024.

Another Drug Manufacturer Pursues Rebate Program as 340B Alternative

Some of the nation’s largest drug manufacturers are forging ahead to implement rebate programs for 340B drugs, even after the federal government has called these programs illegal. While it is unclear how these federal courts will rule, this could threaten the sustainability of safety net providers and their patients.

Hurry Up, STOP. . .Has CTA Been Struck Down By Courts?

Following a recent case in Texas, uncertainty has arisen regarding whether clients should file "beneficial owners" reports. This is a result of the Federal Government enjoined from enforcing the CTA. Contact your BMD Member Blake Gerney to find out how this affects you.