The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood, a case that questions the constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The outcome could significantly impact preventive care requirements across both public and private health insurance sectors, according to industry experts.
The case originated during the Biden administration when a group of individuals and small businesses objected to Affordable Care Act mandates requiring coverage for HIV preventive services and contraceptives, according to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Ellison stated during a conference call that these plaintiffs are prepared to disrupt preventive care for the broader population due to their opposition to these specific coverage mandates.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court will assess whether the USPSTF violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Plaintiffs claim that the USPSTF, composed of unelected and unconfirmed members, exceeded its authority by issuing health coverage mandates.
In response, the government argues that the task force members qualify as “inferior officers” under the Constitution, allowing them to be appointed by a principal officer such as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Justice Department maintains that the HHS secretary’s authority to dismiss task force members is a key factor in this classification.
That’s where it started for them, and they’re willing to destroy preventive care for everybody because of their position
Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case earlier this year. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, warned that if the Supreme Court restricts the USPSTF’s administrative authority, there could be substantial clinical consequences.
Preventive care recommendations would revert to those in place as of March 23, 2010. This shift would allow insurers, including self-insured employer-based plans, to make independent coverage decisions on preventive services, potentially introducing copayments or raising premiums for these services.
Reversing such changes would require new legislation, which Benjamin considers unlikely with the current Congress.
Benjamin noted that this case represents one of the few areas where the Biden and Trump administrations share common ground.
Both administrations support ensuring that the HHS secretary has clear authority to oversee the task force, which addresses concerns regarding the Appointments Clause.
However, Benjamin criticized the current administration for lacking a clear policy on preventive care, despite its stated goal of improving national health outcomes.
All insurers, including the self-insured employer-based plans, will be able to make a variety of different coverage decisions about preventable health services and charge a copayment or increase premiums for them.
Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association
Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has expressed general support for prevention-focused healthcare but has not specified which services he endorses.
Benjamin pointed out that while Oz supports Medicare Advantage, which includes preventive services in its benefits, broader administrative actions—such as funding cuts, staff reductions, and service rollbacks—undermine prevention and public health efforts. This raises concerns about future access to preventive services.
