HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

[Aegon]

It's so absurd that the plaintiffs explicitly claimed PrEP promotes homosexual behavior and promiscuity as the reason it shouldn't be included in the ACA's list of covered preventive care services. It's even more absurd that an actual federal judge agreed. We'll see what happens when HHS appeals. And Judge O'Connor (who is known as a hack who tries to overturn the ACA every chance he gets) has yet to decide how broad of a scope this decision will have. We should know by the end of the month.

This is a really big deal. PrEP is one of the ACA's preventive care services. Under current law, every health insurance plan must cover certain essential health benefits (EHB). The list of preventive care services under the ACA are a part of those EHB. If you want to legally be considered health insurance, you must cover all preventive care services at no out-of-pocket cost to the individual. (Meaning they're free.) Being able to remove the coverage of PrEP from that list of preventive care services may very well lead to further cases that dismantle this part of the law entirely. That sucks, there is a lot of good stuff on that list, from immunizations to cancer screenings.

I don't know how much people here care about administrative law, but this case is actually a huge deal for the regulatory process too. Article II of the Constitution vests the executive authority of the United States in the president but allows executive authority to be exercised by officers nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate or by other “inferior officers.” According to the judge's decision this week, the preventive services requirement violates this standard because members of the USPSTF, ACIP and HRSA (the HHS sub agencies that decide which preventive-care services are covered by the ACA) have not been nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate. This is actually CRAZY, because that's how every agency creates regulation. So if this part of the decision is not overturned, the government will have to fundamentally change how it regulates private industry.

Actually, what the judge ruled is

But District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled on Wednesday that the government cannot require "private, religious corporations" to cover the drug "with no cost-sharing and no religious exemptions".

So, if a church offers insurance to cover the cost of HIV drugs for their employees, they can do so. They aren't prohibited from offering such coverage, they just can be forced to.

The ruling ONLY applies to religious organizations that hate gay people.

Boru

No, this ruling does not apply to churches or religious organizations. Churches already have a religious freedom exemption from the ACA preventive care mandate, that was decided long ago when Obamacare first passed.

According to this decision, any private company that offers health insurance to their employees can refuse to cover PrEP now (and maybe any preventive care service depending on how broad of a scope the judge wants to use). "Religious organization" is not the same thing as a "religious corporation." The term "religious organization" is a legitimate legal term and it refers to a church or religious organization established "on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines and practices of a religious character, and which engages primarily in religious activities." A "religious corporation," on the other hand, is literally any private company that considers itself religious. That's it. Chick-fil-A would be a good example.

You can imagine how many companies in the US might consider themselves "religious corporations."