Top Class Actions website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using these links we may receive a commission, but it will not result in you being charged any additional fees. Please review Partnership Disclosure for more information.

The Affordable Care Act is written on paper with pebbles next to it.
(Image credit: zimmytws/Shutterstock)

ACA Protective Coverage Mandate Overview:

  • from: Reed O’Connor, a Texas federal judge, ruled that the US government could not enforce an Affordable Care Act that would have required insurance plans to provide a number of preventative treatments.
  • Why: O’Connor ruled that the members of the task force set up to determine the required preventive treatments were not legally appointed.
  • where: The case was heard in Texas Federal Court.

A federal judge in Texas blocked the US government from being able to enforce a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires insurance companies to cover a wide range of preventive treatments, including screenings for cancer and diabetes.

The ruling was challenged by a group of two companies and six individuals who argued that preventive care mandates were unconstitutional and violated. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor sided with the group, ruling that members of a task force called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — which was set up to determine which preventative treatment insurance plans to provide — had been illegally appointed.

In his opinion and order, O’Connor said, “Individual plaintiffs need not comply with preventive care coverage recommendations…because members of the staff were not appointed in a manner consistent with the appointments clause of Article II.”

Insurance plans would not be required to offer screenings for certain cancers, depression and HIV, among other things

Insurance plans will now no longer be required to provide screenings for breast, cervical, lung, skin, and colorectal cancer, screenings for depression, diabetes, hepatitis, child vision problems, and HIV screenings and treatment, Law 360 reports.

Reportedly, this ruling would have compelled insurance companies to provide coverage for pregnant and/or nursing women, along with care for their young children.

O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, previously made headlines for repealing the ACA in 2018 and ending Obama-era health insurance protections for LGBTQ individuals, according to Law360.

A federal judge reportedly ruled in September that asking a Christian man for profit to cover HIV prevention drugs would be a violation of the RFRA.

In 2020, the Supreme Court held a telephone hearing to discuss the constitutionality of the Anti-Corruption Law, The following challenges are presented by the State of Texas and other republican states.

Were you affected by the decision not to apply for insurance plans to provide the preventive treatments chosen by the staff? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiffs represent Jane P. Hamilton of America First Law Firm, and H. Dustin Fillmore III, Charles W. Fillmore of Fillmore Law Firm LLP, and Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLC.

the ACA protective coverage mandate status He is Braidwood Management Inc. , and others. Fifth. Xavier Becerra and others.Case No. 4: 20-cv-00283, in the United States District Court for the North District of Texas.

Read more class action lawsuits and class action settlements:

We tell you what cash you can claim every week! Subscribe to our free newsletter.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *