After the 2022 term, several healthcare-related issues will eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)
The Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), california vs texasand other litigation relating to certain provisions of the ACA are ongoing.
In one of those cases, Braidwood Administrator Inc. vs. Becerra, two employers and several individuals have filed lawsuits to invalidate key provisions of the ACA’s preventive services requirements. morning. Compl., No. 4:20-cv-00283-O (ND Tex. July 20, 2020) (ECF No. 14). Reduce financial barriers to access to affordable services. This is done by requiring most private health insurance plans to cover them at no cost to patients. More than 100 preventive screenings are covered under this provision. It also covers Food and Drug Administration-approved contraception and pre-exposure prophylaxis (“PrEP”) to prevent HIV infection. Her more than 150 million people with private health insurance benefit from this requirement.
When Congress drafted the ACA, it did not specify the services covered by law. Instead, three different government agencies with historical expertise: the United States Preventive Services Task Force (“USPST”), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”), and the Health Resources Services Administration (“HRSA”). ”) has been entrusted with that task. 42 USC § 300gg-13(a). This structure allows USPST, ACIP, and HRSA to add new services without Congress passing new legislation.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the ACA’s preventive services requirement should be overridden. morning. completion, braid wood, No. 4:20-cv-00283-O (ECF No. 14). First, it argues that this requirement violates the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause because the President does not appoint members of his USPST, ACIP, and HRSA that determine the services covered. Ditto. ¶ 70. Second, they argue that the President violated the vesting clause of the Constitution by giving executive power to the non-executive USPST. Ditto. ¶ 90. Third, they argue that the non-delegation doctrine, because the government delegates decision-making authority to agencies without providing an “intelligible principle” to guide their discretion. Alleging violations. Ditto. ¶ 85. Finally, they argue that covering PrEP to prevent HIV infection violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ditto. ¶ 108.
The federal government has filed a motion to overrule, arguing that Congress mandated the coverage of these services and the process the USPST, ACIP, and HRSA use to develop their lists of services. look Mott. to dismiss at 24-25, braid wood, No. 4:20-cv-00283-O (ECF No. 20). The government also claimed that the federal agency responsible for overseeing the ACIP and HRSA would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. identification. 21-22 that members of the USPST and ACIP are not officers requiring appointment; identification. 23:00.
Dismissing in part the motion to dismiss, Order 1, braid wood, No. 4:20-cv-00283-O (ECF No. 35), the United States District Court for the District of Texas is currently considering the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Regardless of the outcome, the case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court and may eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.
ADA and Olmsted Litigation
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Supreme Court Decisions Olmsted vs LC, 527 US 581 (1999) requires public agencies to administer services in the most integrated environment appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities. This allows older people to remain in their homes and communities as they age. Nearly 80% of adults over 50 say they want to age at home. However, people tend to acquire disabilities as they age and remain disabled longer, so if local services are not available or connected, they may be unable to access nursing homes or other facilities to receive the services they need. at risk of being forced to move to Individual plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have successfully enforced the ADA and Olmsted To public bodies to ensure that services are available in the community. For example seesettlement agreement, USA v North CarolinaNo. 5:12-cv-00557-D (EDNC 23 August 2012) (ECF No. 2-2) (Settlement Agreement Resolving DOJ Olmsted A survey of state mental health service systems. Expanding access to community-based supported housing for individuals with mental illness). settlement agreement, USA vs. Rhode IslandNo. 1:13-cv-00442 (DRI 13 June 2013) (ECF No. 4-3) (Settlement agreement requiring states to make changes to provide community-based services for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities).
of Florida vs USAFlorida has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the 11th Circuit Court’s decision confirming DOJ’s ability to sue the state for violating its obligations under the ADA. OlmstedDOJ is a key enforcer of Title II of the ADA and Olmsted.
of USA v MississippiThe Fifth Circuit ruled that Mississippi’s mental health system relies heavily on institutionalization and has ADA Title II and Olmsted I need. look memorandum order. & Op. at 51, No. 3:16-cv-00622-CWR-FKB (3 September 2019) (ECF No. 234). AARP and the AARP Foundation explain the importance of implementing the ADA so older people can receive services in the community rather than being forced to live in nursing homes or other institutions. I have submitted an Amicus Brief. Overall, the resolution of these cases will affect the future enforcement of the ADA and the ability of older persons with disabilities to grow old in their communities.
disparity
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted longstanding health disparities based on race and other factors. In Louisiana, for example, in the early days of the pandemic, black residents accounted for 72% of his COVID-19 deaths while making up just 32% of the state’s population. Some states and local governments have taken steps to address these inequities.
of Jacobson vs. Bassett, the Second Circuit is considering an appeal of the district court’s decision to deny its request for a preliminary injunction to suspend the New York Department of Health’s guidance on addressing health care inequities. 3:22-CV-00033 (MAD/ML), 2022 WL 1039691 (NDNY 25 March 2022). In this guidance, when assessing a COVID-19 patient’s likelihood of developing serious illness and whether to prescribe a rare oral antiviral treatment, a physician should ensure that her COVID-19 patient is non-Caucasian. It recommends that you should consider whether you are of any ethnicity, or of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Plaintiff, a law professor at Cornell University, has sought a preliminary injunction to stay the implementation and enforcement of this guidance. He argued that this guidance violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1557 of his ACA, which is based on racial preferences. Jacobson, 2022 WL 1039691 at *1. The district court dismissed the case for lack of evidence. Ditto. * At 4–5. Plaintiffs are currently appealing that decision to the Second Circuit. Several allied groups, including the National Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and the Lawyers’ Commission for Civil Rights, have submitted briefs in support of New York State.
COVID-19 and immunity
Courts may also soon address the ability of nursing facility residents to sue nursing facilities in state court for injuries and deaths suffered during the pandemic. Currently, the Supreme Court Glenhaven Healthcare vs. Saldana petition. Certiorari writ petition, Glenhaven Healthcare vs. Saldana (2022) (No. 22-192). Petitioner, a nursing home, filed a Ninth Circuit Court finding that the Public Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 (the “Preparedness Act”) did not fully preempt state law claims for damages suffered during the pandemic. We are asking the court to reconsider its decision. Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir. 2022).
The PREP Act, enacted in December 2005, authorizes the HHS Secretary to issue a PREP Act declaration that an illness or other health condition constitutes a public health emergency. 42 USC § 247d–6d(b). The PREP Act provides “covered entities,” including nursing facilities, with broad immunity from claims arising from the administration or use of “covered measures,” such as vaccines, personal protective equipment, and pharmaceuticals. Ditto. § 247d–6d(i)(1). This exemption includes claims under both federal and state law. Ditto. § 247d–6d(b)(8). There is a waiver for claims involving willful misconduct, but such claims must be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Ditto. § 247d–6d(d)-(e). If successful, these claims will be compensated through federal funds. Ditto. § 247d–6e.
On January 31, 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II declared a public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. HHS then issued a proclamation enabling his PREP Act protections from February 4, 2020 until he applies until October 1, 2024. There is an interest in having a unified national response to the COVID-19 pandemic among federal, state, local, and private sector entities. Petitioners argue that this statement means that lawsuits brought against state court nursing facilities must be removed to federal court and trigger a PREP Act waiver. petition at the age of 25, Glenhaven Healthcare v. Saldana.
In this case, a resident of the Glenhaven Health Care Nursing Facility in Glendale, California, died of COVID-19. Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, Case No. Cv 20-5631 FMO (MAAx), 2020 WL 6713995 (CD Cal. 14 Oct 2020). His family appealed to state court. After Glenhaven dismissed the case in federal court citing his PREP Act, his family attempted to remand the case to state court. Ditto. The district court granted remand in a decision later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ditto., Ahdo 27 F.4th 679. Nursing homes are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
Second (pending arguments Leroy vs Hume, No. 21-2158), 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 11th (discussion pending, comment pending). These cases are important because they help care home residents and their survivors determine the extent to which facilities can be held accountable for injuries sustained during the pandemic. AARP and the AARP Foundation submitted an Amicus Brief in the Second Circuit. Our Lady of Comfort Care Center v. Rivera Zayas litigation on similar facts. No. 21-02164. Our opinion upheld the ability of nursing home residents to sue nursing homes in state court for damages caused during the pandemic.
Maame Gamfi
mgyamfi@aarp.org
Merrill Grenadier
mgrenadier@aarp.org
See the full Supreme Court preview
.
