This overview is excerpted from Manatt on Health, Manatt’s subscription service that provides in-depth insights and analysis focused on the legal, policy and market developments. For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds.
The plaintiffs who succeeded in persuading the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the requirement for commercial health plans to cover preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is unconstitutional have now
asked the Supreme Court to strike down the corresponding mandate for commercial health plans to cover vaccinations recommended by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and preventive services for women and children recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The federal government has already petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision, in
Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra, that the manner in which the members of the USPSTF are appointed renders the preventive services coverage requirement unconstitutional. The
Braidwood plaintiffs have now filed a “conditional” cross-petition asking the Supreme Court to review the USPSTF, ACIP, and HRSA coverage requirements on a different basis. Because the
Braidwood plaintiffs did not file their petition by the original deadline for seeking Supreme Court review, their petition is now conditional on the Supreme Court accepting the government’s petition regarding the USPSTF’s appointment process: the Supreme Court can only consider the separate constitutional issues the plaintiffs raise if it accepts the government’s petition on USPSTF.
For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds.