Judge Rules That Employers Do Not Have to Cover Certain Preventive Care Services

A US district judge ruled in Braidwood Management vs Becerra that employers do not have to cover preventive care services based on recommendations from US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Six individuals and two businesses filed a suit against the preventive care mandates, primarily arguing that these compromised the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

In this case, there were plaintiffs who objected to the law on religious grounds and those who objected based on non-religious grounds. Those who argued from a religious right standpoint said that they should not be forced to pay for preventive care services, specifically contraceptives and PrEP drugs, because of the use of such drugs or the activities they endorsed—according to the plaintiffs—conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Those who argued from a non-religious standpoint said that they should not be legally required to buy a service they would not need. These objectors wanted the option to buy plans that did not include coverage for birth control when the couple was past the point of childbearing, for example.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not harmed by Affordable Care Act preventive care service coverage because they could opt to purchase other coverage. But the judge rejected the defendants’ arguments.

“Plaintiffs are suffering a cognizable injury now through their current inability to purchase conventional health insurance that excludes the objectionable coverage,” the court said.

However, the court agreed with the defendants that the non-religious objectors were not harmed enough to forego health insurance altogether. In contrast, religious objectors could not purchase insurance because of their core beliefs.

The judge found that the preventive care services mandate violated the plaintiffs’ religious freedoms. Additionally, the plaintiffs should not have to comply with USPSTF recommendations because the court found that USPSTF members were not properly selected.

The court said that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows for the vacatur of agency actions taken to enforce the USPSTF mandates and found it applicable in this situation.

“The only remedy that could relieve Plaintiffs’ injury is one directed at the agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing the unconstitutional statute, since courts have no authority to order Congress to cure its statutory deficiency,” the judge explained.

Vacatur is more appropriate than severance, the court argued. Vacatur means that a rule is annulled.

Thus, any actions to enforce USPSTF A or B recommendations are considered unlawful and must be vacated.