Opinion: How to protect PrEP coverage, no matter what happens in Braidwood v. Becerra
Since a Texas judge’s decision dropped earlier this spring, Braidwood v. Becerra has sent shudders down public health’s spine. Similar to earlier contraceptive mandate cases, Braidwood involves plaintiff-employers who object to paying for health insurance that includes coverage of disease screenings and PrEP for HIV on moral grounds. Their legal claims challenge the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s authority under the Affordable Care Act to determine mandatory coverage of clinical preventive measures. They argue that the specific requirement to cover PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, for HIV impermissibly burdens their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Now on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the judge’s decision in March overturned the task force’s role in determining which preventive services must be covered by private health insurance under the ACA and enjoined the requirement that payers cover any of its recommended services, including PrEP for HIV. The decision was stayed by the 5th Circuit on May 15 pending its decision on appeal.
