Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
Donate to our newsroom

Menu

Topics

  • Abortion
  • Politics
  • Education
  • LGBTQ+
  • Caregiving
  • Environment & Climate
  • Business & Economy
View all topics

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

  • Latest Stories
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Ways to Give
  • Search
  • Contact
Donate
Home

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

Topics

  • Abortion
  • Politics
  • Education
  • LGBTQ+
  • Caregiving
  • Environment & Climate
  • Business & Economy
View all topics

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

  • Latest Stories
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Ways to Give
  • Search
  • Contact

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Become a member

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

Health

The Affordable Care Act’s biggest gender-based protections are under threat

The Texas-based case examines the ACA’s guarantee that preventive medicine be fully covered. It could affect coverage of PrEP, breastfeeding counseling, STI screening and contraception.

wall-mounted medical diagnostic equipment beside standard patient examination chair
(Getty Images)

Shefali Luthra

Reproductive Health Reporter

Published

2022-09-14 11:52
11:52
September 14, 2022
am

Republish this story

Share

  • Bluesky
  • Facebook
  • Email

Republish this story

After a federal court decided that HIV prevention medication does not need to be covered under the Affordable Care Act, experts fear that many other reproductive health services — screening for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding counseling and even contraceptive care — could now be threatened. 

The ruling’s scope — including the nuances of how it could affect people’s insurance plans — will be addressed at a hearing Friday. If upheld, the case could ultimately reverse one of the most significant reforms established by the ACA, with particular impact on the law’s gender-based health protections.

“It would be devastating,” said Katie Keith, a health law expert at Georgetown University.

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

The decision, which was issued last week by a district judge in Texas, has not yet taken any effect or changed anyone’s insurance. At the hearing Friday, Judge Reed O’Connor will ask both sides to provide arguments for how his ruling should be enforced and discuss whether insurance must continue to fully cover contraception.

The case concerns an ACA provision requiring health insurance to cover certain preventive medical services with no out-of-pocket costs. Those benefits are picked by three federal bodies: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Advisory Council on Immunization Practices. Benefits include a daily pill taken for HIV prevention — known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which is 99 percent effective — as well as at least one version of each method of contraception. 

The plaintiffs, a group of employers, argued that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to let those three bodies determine which medical services are covered. They also argued that they should not have to provide insurance covering PrEP and contraception, because doing so violated their religious beliefs.

Sign up for more news and context delivered to your inbox, daily

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Preview of the daily newsletter from The 19th

Last week, O’Connor, who has previously issued decisions that would weaken the ACA, ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs. 

In his decision, he struck down the requirement that insurance cover, without cost-sharing, the benefits that are recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Those include HIV screening, chlamydia and gonorrhea screenings, breastfeeding support, mental health interventions for pregnant and postpartum people, and extra counseling and treatment for people at higher risk of breast cancer. The ruling did not address contraceptive benefits, which are not determined by the Preventive Services Task Force 

Separately, O’Connor also ruled that the plaintiffs should not be required to cover PrEP if they felt that doing so violated their religious beliefs. 

Neither the impact of the ruling nor its timing is clear. Following Friday’s briefing, O’Connor could limit his ruling only to affect the plaintiffs so that only they, and anyone else who files similar lawsuits, would be exempt from the ACA requirements. He could issue a nationwide injunction, blocking the affected ACA requirements for health plans more broadly. 

“It’s a question of the scope,” said Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “In the past, Reed O’Connor has not been shy about issuing national injunctions.”

It is not clear how long after Friday’s hearing O’Connor will issue a decision, or what the next steps might be. The list of benefits that could be affected is extensive.

“Are you really going to drop depression services? Screening for pregnancy and diabetes?” Sobel said.

In his ruling last week, O’Connor did not address litigants’ religious objections to covering contraception, instructing them to address that at Friday’s briefing. That means O’Connor could issue a decision weakening that protection, potentially striking down entirely the ACA requirement that birth control be covered with no cost-sharing. 

  • Read Next:
    The U.S. Capitol Dome in Washington, D.C.
  • Read Next: Democrats urge Biden administration to use HIPAA to protect abortion rights and privacy

The Supreme Court has already issued rulings that severely weakened the contraceptive mandate, allowing employers with religious and moral objections to opt out of providing that benefit. 

Because health insurance plans are already being set for next year, and because it’s not yet clear what policy O’Connor will order, the case will not immediately change anyone’s health insurance. If O’Connor issues an injunction, the federal government is also likely to appeal the case, which would first go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — considered the most conservative appeals court in the country — and then to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court, which has shifted to the right, may also be more willing than it was a few years ago to issue a ruling that significantly weakens the preventive services coverage mandate. A decision could come this fall through the high court’s so-called “shadow docket,” Sobel said. That refers to a process in which the court issues often-major decisions outside the timeline and scrutiny of the normal Supreme Court calendar.

If that happened, health insurance plans could try to change their benefits before 2023, but the larger impact would likely emerge the following year. It’s difficult to know what benefits plans might drop if they are no longer required to offer them. But the impact could be significant.

“You’re going back to the pre-ACA world,” Keith said. The preventive services mandate “is one of the most popular and widely recognized benefits of the ACA. It’s been 12 years that it’s been in place. It’s maybe not the heart of the ACA, but it’s a pretty core and highly visible part.”

Republish this story

Share

  • Bluesky
  • Facebook
  • Email

Recommended for you

Federal judge rules against covering some preventive health services and medications
A pharmacists holds a PrEP pill, a daily pill that prevents the transmission of H.I.V.
Health insurance plans must continue covering preventive services for now
Women and Health Care Illustration
The 19th Explains: Trump and Biden’s health care plans through a gender lens
A woman holds a one-month’s prescription of birth control pills.
White House nixes proposal to make insurance cover over-the-counter birth control

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Become a member

Explore more coverage from The 19th
Abortion Politics Education LGBTQ+ Caregiving
View all topics

Our newsroom's Spring Member Drive is here!

Learn more about membership.

  • Transparency
    • About
    • Team
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Community Guidelines
  • Newsroom
    • Latest Stories
    • 19th News Network
    • Podcast
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Fellowships
  • Newsletters
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • The Amendment
    • Event Invites
  • Support
    • Ways to Give
    • Sponsorship
    • Republishing
    • Volunteer

The 19th is a reader-supported nonprofit news organization. Our stories are free to republish with these guidelines.