The Supreme Court today is set to hear arguments in a case challenging a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires private insurers to cover health care screenings, tests and checkups for free. Experts say the court's ruling in the case, called Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, could have sweeping consequences for patient access to preventive healthcare across the United States.
Improved birth rates are a stated priority for President Donald Trump's administration—but proposed budget cuts could make it harder for many Americans to afford a safe, healthy pregnancy.
UnitedHealth Group surprised investors with what its CEO said was an 'unusual and unacceptable' quarterly earnings miss, and it lowered its outlook for the full year due to higher-than-expected medical costs, sparking a more than 20% selloff in shares that reverberated across the sector. The company's first earnings miss since 2008 and accompanying bleak forecast sent investors to the exits, as they were hoping the U.S. insurer would maintain its profit outlook on expectations that demand for medical services would be similar to 2024.
For a decade and a half, Americans have been guaranteed that no matter their health insurer, certain preventive care like cancer screenings are free of charge. That's because an ACA provision has required insurers to fully cover services given an A or B recommendation by an expert task force. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to this statute in the case of Kennedy v. BraidwoodManagement. Either way the court decides, legal and medical experts told STAT, the ruling could have profound ramifications for the future of preventive healthcare in the United States.
President Trump unveiled a wide-ranging executive order on Tuesday that aims to lower drug prices, boost transparency into fees charged by middlemen, and limit Medicare payments for outpatient services provided by hospitals. Much of the order would require further rulemaking or other actions to have any effect.
Dozens of state attorneys general are urging Congress to pass a law prohibiting PBMs from simultaneously owning pharmacies, arguing such a move would boost competition and create more affordable prescription drug prices for Americans. Their concern is these arrangements create conflicts of interest that allow PBMs to dominate the design of health plans for tens of millions of Americans, and also distort the distribution and pricing for prescription medicines.