Fact Check: Appeals court previously sided with employers against HIV prevention coverage
What We Know
On June 21, 2024, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain employers could exclude no-cost coverage for preventive care services, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and some cancer screenings. This ruling was specific to eight employers who challenged the federal health insurance requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was based on claims of constitutional violations regarding the authority of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to issue such mandates (AP News). The court found that the coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they originated from a body whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate (AP News).
Despite this ruling, the court clarified that insurers would still be required to cover preventive services, including PrEP, for individuals not associated with the plaintiffs. The decision has implications for the broader landscape of preventive care coverage under the ACA, as it raises questions about the constitutionality of similar mandates (AP News).
Analysis
The ruling from the 5th Circuit is significant as it reflects the ongoing legal challenges to the ACA and its provisions for preventive health care. The court's decision was influenced by the conservative leanings of its judges, which has been noted in various analyses of the court's history (New York Times). Critics argue that this ruling could set a precedent that undermines access to essential health services, particularly for marginalized communities that rely on preventive care to manage health risks, including HIV (AP News).
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is strong, particularly the Associated Press, which is known for its rigorous journalistic standards. The New York Times also provides credible reporting on health care issues, although it may have a slightly liberal bias compared to the conservative leanings of the 5th Circuit. The implications of this ruling are still unfolding, as it sends the case back to a lower court for further review of related issues (AP News).
Conclusion
The claim that a federal appeals court sided with employers against HIV prevention coverage is True. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain employers could exclude no-cost coverage for HIV preventive services, citing constitutional grounds related to the authority of the USPSTF. While this ruling does not apply nationwide, it raises significant concerns about the future of preventive health care coverage under the ACA.
