vlog

[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Viewpoint
Health and the 2024 US Election
September 23, 2024

The US Preventive Services Task Force in Legal Jeopardy

Author Affiliations
  • 1Boston University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2JAMA, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA. 2024;332(19):1607-1608. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.17377

For 40 years, as a guide for physicians and the general public, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has reviewed the scientific evidence and issued critical recommendations on preventive health measures, including screening for cancers of the cervix, colorectum, and breast.1 In 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which included a provision (Section 2713) that preventive health recommendations issued by the USPSTF and assigned an A or B rating (the highest ratings, indicating the strongest evidence in support) must be covered by most private health insurers without cost-sharing.2 The same coverage mandate applied to vaccination recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and preventive health measures recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The ACA provided that the USPSTF and its recommendations “…shall be independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.”3

Add or change institution
1 Comment for this article
EXPAND ALL
The Alphabet Soup of Unaccountability
Karl PK, MBA | Consultant to the Pharma Industry
Just in the first paragraph of this article, to set the stage...we have

(1) the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
(2) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)
(3) the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
(4) the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

Is it any wonder that the citizens have become skeptical about government? Moreover, the authors write this:

"In formulating Section 2713 of the ACA, the clear intent of Congress was to make preventive health interventions more widely accessible to the general public."

This is a disingenuous sugarcoating
-- the intent was also to impose a "mandate" in this instance, along with a series of other mandates, with rulings in effect to be adjudicated by the unelected.

Look, I am sure all the individuals associated with the alphabet soup of task forces and committees and administrative bodies are almost certainly well meaning. But when the authors write that the mandate in question is imposed "without cost sharing" -- that is also disingenuous sugar coating, because those costs don't magically disappear. They are transferred elsewhere to other parties in the economic system. Someone WILL pay somewhere down the line.

"Preventive health interventions" may or may not be an unalloyed good on a case by case basis. And perhaps one can make the argument that "greater accessibility" will lead inevitable to "greater implementation" and in the end "greater economic and health benefits." But the people need a say in the matter.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
×