Round 2 on the legal challenges to contraceptive coverage: are nonprofits "substantially burdened" by the "accommodation"?

Round 2 on the legal challenges to contraceptive coverage: are nonprofits "substantially burdened" by the "accommodation"?

Collection:
Health Policy and Services Research
Series Title(s):
Issue brief (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation)
Author(s):
Sobel, Laura, author
Salganicoff, Alina, author
Contributor(s):
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, issuing body.
Publication:
Menlo Park, CA : Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, November 2015
Language(s):
English
Format:
Text
Subject(s):
Contraception -- economics
Contraceptive Agents -- economics
Health Benefit Plans, Employee -- economics
Health Benefit Plans, Employee -- legislation & jurisprudence
Health Care Reform -- legislation & jurisprudence
Health Services Accessibility -- economics
Health Services Accessibility -- legislation & jurisprudence
Insurance Coverage -- economics
Insurance Coverage -- legislation & jurisprudence
Insurance, Health -- economics
Insurance, Health -- legislation & jurisprudence
Religion and Medicine
Supreme Court Decisions
Women's Health Services -- economics
Women's Health Services -- legislation & jurisprudence
United States
United States.
Genre(s):
Technical Report
Abstract:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved prescription contraceptives and services for women. Since the implementation of the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement in 2012, over 200 corporations have filed lawsuits claiming that including coverage for contraceptives or opting for an "accommodation" from the federal government violates their religious beliefs. The legal challenges have fallen into two groups: those filed by for-profit corporations and those filed by nonprofit organizations. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court ruled that "closely held" for-profit corporations may be exempted from the requirement. This ruling, however, only settled part of the legal questions raised by the contraceptive coverage requirement, as there are there are other legal challenges brought by nonprofit corporations. The nonprofits are seeking an "exemption," meaning their workers would not have coverage for some or all contraceptives, rather than an "accommodation," which entitles their workers to full contraceptive coverage but releases the employer from paying for it. In 2014, the Supreme Court issued emergency orders for a religiously-affiliated nursing home, Little Sisters of the Poor, and a religious college, Wheaton College, that allowed these nonprofits to let the government know about its objection to the contraceptive coverage, rather than directly notifying their insurer while the litigation proceeded through the lower courts. The lawsuits brought by nonprofits have worked their way through the federal courts. Seven federal appeals courts have ruled in favor of the Government upholding the accommodation, and one federal appeals court has ruled in favor of the nonprofits. On November 6, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear seven cases that involve nonprofit corporations. These lawsuits have been filed by: David A. Zubik (the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh), Priests for Life, Roman Catholic Archbishop, East Texas Baptist University, Little Sisters of the Poor, Southern Nazarene University, and Geneva College. These cases are explained in more detail below. This brief explains the legal issues raised by the nonprofit litigation and discusses the impact of the Hobby Lobby decision on the current litigation.
Copyright:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further use of the material is subject to CC BY license. (More information)
Extent:
1 online resource (1 PDF file (9 pages, 1 unnumbered page))
Illustrations:
Illustrations
NLM Unique ID:
101670667 (See catalog record)
Permanent Link:
http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101670667