JAMA Health Forum – Health Policy, Health Care Reform, Health Affairs | JAMA Health Forum | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Insights
Reproductive Health
May 15, 2020

Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Author Affiliations
  • 1Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 2Deputy Editor, JAMA, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(5):e200605. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0605

The US Supreme Court recently heard its third case regarding the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires all health insurance plans to cover US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved contraceptives without cost sharing. The pair of consolidated cases,1 Little Sisters of the Poor v Pennsylvania and Trump v Pennsylvania, concerns the Trump administration’s regulations2 that vastly expanded the universe of employers exempt from the mandate. The rules would exempt from this ACA requirement any employer with a religious or nonreligious moral objection to providing contraceptive coverage. In July 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction, so the rules have not yet taken effect. If the US Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Third Circuit and upholds the new rules, many employers could remove contraceptive coverage from their insurance plans. For women with employer-sponsored health insurance, such a decision could leave many without contraceptive coverage and thereby undermine public health.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×