The lecture covered the wide variety of preventative care that is now provided under PPACA. The preventative services included are based on ratings by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and include FDA-approved contraception. [2] As discussed, group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers are exempt from the requirement. [3] In the wake of the determination to include contraception coverage, 74 cases have been filed challenging the rule about contraception coverage, from a mix of for-profit and non-profits. Four courts of appeals have heard cases on contraceptive coverage, and a circuit split currently exists. The lecture covered four cases from the Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, focusing on
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius. [4] The Hobby Lobby case revolves around whether or not the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) allows for-profit corporations to deny contraceptive coverage to employees using their health benefits, based on the religious views of the corporation’s owners. [5] Petitions for writ of certiorari are pending with the Supreme Court of the United States in three of the cases and their outcome remains to be seen. The Federal Government has asked the Supreme Court to deny certiorari to Autocam and to put off Conestoga until it has reached a decision in Hobby Lobby. [6]
If you missed the lecture, check out the audio and video recording here: http://condor.depaul.edu/mptvideo/LAW/10222013/10222013.html
The speakers at the lecture series, Danielle Capilla and Nicole Stone, work for Wolters Kluwer, a leading global provider of intelligent solutions for legal and business professionals. They are based in Riverwoods, Illinois.
References
[1] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148 (2010).
[2] Preventative Services Covered by Private Health Plans under the Affordable Care Act, Kaiser Family Foundation (Sept. 2011), http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8219.pdf.
[3] 45 CFR 147.130 (2010).
[4] 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013). See Conestoga Wood Specialisties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013);Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 730 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2013). Annex Med. v. Sebelius, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013).
[5] Hobbby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1121.
[6] Jenny M. Burke, Supreme Court Asked to Review Next Set of Affordable Care Act Challenges, Wolters Kluwer (Oct. 24, 2013), http://health.wolterskluwerlb.com/?s=hobby+lobby.