How the Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling on Preventive Care Could Reshape the U.S. Healthcare Landscape 

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case that could change how Americans access preventive healthcare. This outcome might determine whether private insurers must continue covering preventive services, such as cancer screenings, pregnancy care, and STI testing, without a charge to the patient’s pocket. If this is rejected, experts are warning that these services could become less accessible and a lot more costly in the long run. 

Ever since the Affordable Care Act was approved in 2010, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), most private insurance plans have been required to cover a wide range of preventive services without cost-sharing. Nearly 152 million people benefited from this provision in just 2020. However, that mandate is now under threat. 

The case under debate is called Braidwood Management v. Becerra. In this case, a few people from Texas and two Christian-owned businesses say that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was chosen unconstitutionally. They also argue that they are being forced to pay for medications like PrEP, which goes against their religious beliefs. 

A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2022, mentioning that the task force lacked proper congressional appointment, therefore, invalidating any authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling in June 2024, and now the Supreme Court will have the final say after hearing oral arguments on April 21.  

As suggested by legal experts, here are a few possibilities:  

• A Narrow Ruling: The court sided with the plaintiff based on religious grounds and granted exemptions to faith-based organizations while preserving the broader preventive care mandate.  
• A Broad Ruling: The entire preventive care requirement could be struck down if the court agrees that the USPSTF was, in fact, unconstitutionally appointed. 
• A Full Reversal: The government wins, and the mandate is kept fully intact.  

Founding partner at Frier Levitt claims that even a partial win for the plaintiffs could raise even more religious objections to other healthcare services like vaccinations, reproductive care, etc. “It could create a domino effect in how healthcare is accessed and delivered,” he warned. 

On the other hand, public health experts believe that this case is more than just legal technicalities; rather, it’s about the real-world catastrophic consequences of rolling back access to preventive care. Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., vice president at the Commonwealth Fund said, “We have decades of evidence showing that even small cost-sharing requirements discourage people—especially low-income individuals—from seeking necessary care,” and added, “Preventive services are critical not just for individual health but also for community well-being and long-term cost savings.” 

Some of the key services that are likely to be affected in case the mandate is overturned include screenings for colorectal and breast cancer, medications to prevent cardiovascular disease, and HIV and Hepatitis B testing. Many of these have evolved based on new evidence and recommendations. “Preventive care saves lives. It’s not controversial. If this provision is overturned, we could see devastating consequences for decades to come.”, said Jessica Horwitz, chief clinical officer at a women’s health company.  

Another chief health officer at Included Health, Ami Parekh, suggested that skipping or delaying preventive care due to high costs could result in even higher medical expenses in the long run. “There’s clear evidence that when patients bear more of the financial burden, the use of high-value care goes down, leading to worse outcomes and higher total costs.” 

However, even if the court rejects the preventive care mandate, most employers and insurers might continue offering these services at no cost for good business. As pointed out by Frier, preventive care helps reduce absenteeism, improve workplace productivity, and lower long-term healthcare costs. “Value-based care isn’t just a buzzword – it’s a smart investment.” However, without a legal requirement, coverage levels will likely vary significantly, making many millions of Americans vulnerable to cost-related barriers.  

Awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, affordable preventive care soon hangs in the balance, with the long-standing principle that early intervention is the best medicine.