![\"Exterior](\"https:\/\/news.umich.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/mc-image-cache\/2025\/06\/supreme-court-ruling-on-preventive-health-care-coverage-u-m-experts-can-comment.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Supreme Court ruling<\/a> in the case of Kennedy v. Braidwood Management preserves the Affordable Care Act provision that makes certain preventive care<\/a> available to patients at no cost to them, as long as they meet criteria laid out in the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.<\/p>\n University of Michigan experts discuss the outcome of the case and its implications. <\/p>\n Nicholas Bagley<\/strong><\/a>, a professor at the Law School, has analyzed and written on Kennedy v. Braidwood since it began. In April, he wrote<\/a> about the issue of the nature of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force members\u2019 appointments and the ability of the Health and Human Services secretary to remove them.<\/p>\n \u201cThe big takeaway here is that the task force\u2019s recommendations are binding, just as the ACA\u2019s drafters intended. But the scheme is constitutional only because (HHS Secretary) Kennedy can exercise near-complete control over task force recommendations. A mixed bag!\u201d he said on social media.<\/p>\n Bagley\u2019s social media thread<\/a> explaining the ruling, using snippets from the court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n A. Mark Fendrick<\/strong><\/a> is a professor of internal medicine at the Medical School and director of the Center for Value-Based Insurance Design<\/a>. He has spent more than 20 years studying the impacts of out-of-pocket costs on the decisions that patients and providers make about care, and his work helped inform the design of the ACA provision at the heart of the case.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u201cBecause prevention and early detection play such a critical role in reducing the clinical and economic burden of chronic diseases, access to effective screening is foundational,\u201d he said. \u201cThe Supreme Court\u2019s decision to preserve the extremely popular ACA requirement that insurance plans cover preventive services receiving an A or B rating by the United States Preventive Services Task Force at no cost (i.e., copays, coinsurance or deductibles) to patients is a win for patients, clinicians and the strained U.S. delivery system.<\/p>\n \u201cThe provision enhances coverage for over 200 million insured Americans, about 60% of whom use at least one of the covered services each year, leading to better patient outcomes and in some instances lower medical costs.<\/p>\n \u201cClinicians rely heavily on the recommendations provided by the carefully vetted USPSTF. In a new environment where the USPSTF members are selected by the secretary, clinicians may need to turn to other sources to find unbiased scientific information needed to advise patients. Such a change will add further complexity to the already overburdened workforce and possible confusion for patients.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven that many insured Americans who are eligible for no-cost preventive care have not received these potentially lifesaving services, the court\u2019s decision offers a \u2018second chance\u2019 for key constituents, including those who initiate screening and diagnose and treat these conditions, to better educate eligible individuals about no-cost screening and to help them navigate the screening continuum.\u201d<\/p>\n Minal Patel<\/strong><\/a>, professor of health behavior and health equity at the School of Public Health, studies how the financial burden of chronic illness affects people\u2019s ability to manage their health.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s decision recognizes something fundamental: Prevention isn\u2019t a luxury\u2014it\u2019s how we help people live out what\u2019s possible in their lives,\u201d she said. \u201cWhen we see cancer diagnoses happening in younger and younger people, it\u2019s a reminder that early detection through accessible screening can be the difference between a treatable condition and a life cut short.<\/p>\n \u201cBy preserving no-cost preventive care, the court is saying that a person\u2019s ability to catch health problems early shouldn\u2019t depend on their ability to pay a copay. This means more parents will be there for their children\u2019s milestones, more young adults will get the early interventions that set them up for healthy and fulfilling futures, and more families won\u2019t have to choose between a screening today and paying for groceries this week.\u201d<\/p>\n Diane Harper<\/strong><\/a> is a professor of family medicine at the Medical School who has studied both cervical cancer screening and the vaccine against the human papillomavirus that\u2019s designed to prevent cervical cancer. Both are services covered by the ACA provision, though follow-up testing of screening is not, which leads some patients not to follow up on abnormal results because of cost. Last year, she and colleagues published a study on the potential impact of more eligible individuals receiving screening and follow-up tests<\/p>\n \u201cThe work of the USPSTF by the expert generalists who provide the population perspective on health issues is absolutely necessary,\u201d she said. \u201cThis group advances changes in health care practice based on solid evidence from a population perspective. I sincerely hope that the USPSTF remains an apolitical body that is well balanced in generalist specialties to provide guidance to update clinical care.\u201d<\/p>\n Geoffrey Hoffman<\/strong><\/a> is an associate professor at the School of Nursing who studies fall prevention and fall-related injuries in older adults. In a recent commentary<\/a> in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, he wrote about the implications of the case for coverage of exercise-based programs recommended by the USPSTF to help reduce the risk of falls in older adults.<\/p>\n \u201cPolicies that enhance\u2014rather than decrease\u2014access to fall prevention screenings and interventions are warranted,\u201d he said. The ruling \u201coffers a \u2018second chance\u2019 for key constituents, including those who assess fall risk and provide interventions to prevent falls and treat their complications, to better educate eligible patients about the benefits of screening for and intervening in order to prevent falls.<\/p>\n \u201cIncreased risk assessment and uptake of preventive no-cost exercise interventions to prevent falls would improve patient well-being, reduce medical expenditures, and create a rare \u2018win-win-win\u2019 scenario for patients, clinicians and the Medicare program.\u201d<\/p>\n Anna Lok<\/strong><\/a> and Elliot Tapper<\/strong><\/a> are hepatologists and professors of internal medicine at the Medical School who recently wrote an article<\/a> on the potential effect of today\u2019s ruling on efforts to cure hepatitis C.<\/p>\n A one-time hepatitis C screening is among the preventive services currently recommended by the USPSTF. The treatment of hepatitis C has been transformed by direct-acting antivirals, which can cure 95% of cases. Individuals can only be cured, however, if they are diagnosed in a timely fashion.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is important to continue to support all current recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,\u201d said Lok, director of clinical hepatology at U-M Health. \u201cChanges to those recommendations must be guided by scientific evidence, including inputs from experts and the public.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cKnowledge is power: We cannot save lives from hepatitis C if we do not know who has it,\u201d said Tapper, director of the U-M Health Cirrhosis Program. \u201cThe only way to know is through testing. As people who care deeply about preventing the harms and costs of cirrhosis and liver cancer, we hope that the future is free of barriers to testing.\u201d<\/p>\n David Hutton<\/strong><\/a> is a professor of health management and policy and of global public health at the School of Public Health, as well as professor of industrial and operations engineering at the College of Engineering. His research is focused on health policy and medical decisions, particularly the mathematical models to assist with the allocation of resources for health. He has served as consultant, adviser and collaborator with the World Health Organization, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.<\/p>\n Kao-Ping Chua<\/strong><\/a>, associate professor of pediatrics at the Medical School and director of the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, reflects that the court case that led to today\u2019s ruling began over the issue of providing pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, medication to patients at high risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Chua and colleagues led by Nina Hill<\/a> recently published a study<\/a> showing that the use of PrEP in young adults grew eightfold in the first decade it was available. PrEP was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2019.<\/p>\n Ella Kazerooni<\/strong><\/a> is a professor of radiology and internal medicine at the Medical School and inaugural chair of the American Cancer Society\u2019s Lung Cancer Screening Roundtable. Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer<\/a> is among the recommended services.<\/p>\n \u201cLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in United States among both men and women,\u201d she said. \u201cLung cancer screening with low-dose CT is the No. 1 way to prevent these deaths. Today\u2019s action by the Supreme Court maintains the ability of all eligible individuals to continue to receive this life-saving test with no copay required by their private insurance.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Legal, medical and public health experts reflect on Kennedy v. Braidwood ruling\u2019s implications The Supreme Court ruling in…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":24803,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[210,1141,1142,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-24802","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-health-care","8":"tag-health","9":"tag-health-care","10":"tag-healthcare","11":"tag-united-states","12":"tag-unitedstates","13":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114767344670947346","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24802\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a>Nicholas Bagley<\/p>\n<\/a>Minal Patel<\/p>\n<\/a>Diane Harper<\/p>\n<\/a>Geoffrey Hoffman<\/p>\n<\/a>Anna Lok<\/p>\n<\/a>Elliot Tapper<\/p>\n<\/a>David Hutton<\/p>\n<\/a>Kao-Ping Chua<\/p>\n<\/a>Ella Kazerooni<\/p>\n