Chuck Darwin<p>Judge's Decision Would Make Some No-Cost Cancer Screenings a Thing of the Past - Scientific American</p><p>A federal judge on Thursday <a href="https://c.im/tags/overturned" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>overturned</span></a> a portion of the Affordable Care Act that makes <a href="https://c.im/tags/preventive" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>preventive</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/services" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>services</span></a>, such as some <a href="https://c.im/tags/cancer" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>cancer</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/screenings" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>screenings</span></a>, <a href="https://c.im/tags/free" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>free</span></a> to enrollees, a decision that could affect health insurance policyholders nationwide.</p><p>The decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas could open the door for insurers or employers to <a href="https://c.im/tags/reinstate" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>reinstate</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/copayments" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>copayments</span></a> for some of those preventive services, although many may be reluctant or unable to do so, at least immediately.</p><p>The ruling by U.S. District <a href="https://c.im/tags/Judge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Judge</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Reed" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Reed</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/OConnor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OConnor</span></a> builds on a September judgment in which he also said the ACA requirement that employers cover preexposure prophylaxis treatment to prevent HIV violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.</p><p>His ruling is the latest shot in the legal battle over the ACA. “Previous cases threatened the very existence of the law and fundamental protections. This decision does not do that,” said Larry Levitt, KFF executive vice president for health policy. But “it strikes down a portion of the law, albeit a very popular one, that is used by a lot of people.”</p><p>It is almost certain to be <a href="https://c.im/tags/appealed" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>appealed</span></a>, possibly by both sides: the conservative groups that brought the case and had hoped the decision would be broader, and the Biden administration, which supports the <a href="https://c.im/tags/ACA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ACA</span></a>.</p><p><a href="https://khn.org/news/article/braidwood-becerra-aca-preventive-services-court-decision-reed-oconnor/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">khn.org/news/article/braidwood</span><span class="invisible">-becerra-aca-preventive-services-court-decision-reed-oconnor/</span></a></p>