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.


"Alien Land Law" Restricts Foreign Ownership of Real Property in Florida

You can now enter into a Postnuptial Agreement in Ohio!

Ohio's 2024-2025 Fiscal Budget - Behavioral Health Updates

Ohio’s 2024-2025 State Budget was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on July 3, 2023. Behavioral health is an area that Governor DeWine expressed great interest in supporting and the final version of the Budget does reflect some of those initiatives. The Budget prioritizes growing the behavioral health workforce and increasing research and innovation by building community capacity for care that offers better crisis response services and treatment, increased prevention efforts, and increased provision of residential and outpatient services. Outlined below are notable Budget items geared toward achieving growth and improvement in the behavioral health field as well as some key items that were rejected by Governor DeWine’s veto.

ChatGPT for Legal Research

How trustworthy and beneficial is ChatGPT for legal research? What are the benefits and drawbacks of using this tool in the legal system.

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Legally Decline Employees’ Religious Accommodation Requests

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) employers must show, in order to decline religious accommodations, that the burden of granting religious accommodations to employees will result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business, thus amending the prior, simple standard of a “de minimis” undue hardship.