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.


Board of Pharmacy Rule Changes

Board of Pharmacy made changes to rules effective on March 4, 2024

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.