In this edition of AcademyHealth’s Situation Report, we examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Braidwood v. Becerra, a case that could limit access to no-cost preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act. We also track the growing federal scrutiny of medical journals, the NIH’s controversial pause on grants to leading universities, and industry pushback against proposed ACA enrollment changes. Plus, we highlight a new AcademyHealth blog series on the critical importance of data access for public health, and report on a politically charged NIH-backed autism study that raises major privacy concerns.
In today’s issue:
- Supreme Court to Weigh in on ACA Preventive Care Mandate
- Federal Scrutiny of Medical Journals Raises Concerns
- NIH Pauses Grants to Top Universities and Issues New Restrictions Tied to DEI and Israel Policies
- Health Care Industry Urges Delay of ACA Changes That Could Affect Millions
- NIH Gathers Private Medical Data for Controversial Autism Study Led by RFK Jr.
- AcademyHealth Launches Blog Series on the Importance of Data Access for Advancing Health Outcomes
Supreme Court to Weigh in on ACA Preventive Care Mandate
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc (formerly Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc), which challenges the constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The case has significant implications for the future of preventive health care in the United States. At the heart of the issue is whether the USPSTF—a body that provides evidence-based recommendations on preventive services insurers must cover without cost-sharing—was constitutionally established. These recommendations, grounded in rigorous health services research, have expanded access to critical services like cancer screenings and vaccinations for millions of Americans. For the health services research field, this case threatens to weaken a key mechanism for translating scientific evidence into equitable and cost-effective care—making its outcome a matter of both policy and public health importance. AcademyHealth previously published a blog post providing more details on the Braidwood case, the potential implications, and the advocacy work we have done surrounding the case.
The challengers argue that the USPSTF violates the Appointments Clause because the Task Force members were not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, the Appointments Clause only applies if the Task Force members are considered principal officers, which the government maintains that they are not. Currently, USPSTF provides recommendations for preventive care services that insurers are required to cover for free. If deemed unconstitutional, insurers may no longer be required to cover preventive care services previously recommended by the USPSTF. The hearing primarily focused on analyzing the statute that established the USPSTF to determine if the Task Force members should be considered “independent”. This is because for someone to be considered an inferior officer, their work must be supervised by a principal officer who was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The government argued that while the statute declares that the Task Force members are independent that they are still supervised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services because the Secretary has the power to remove members from the Task Force and that the authority to direct members to rescind recommendations. Justices Sotomayor and Barrett seemed to agree with the government’s interpretation of “independent” while Justices Alito and Kavanaugh questioned it. The challengers argued that the Secretary does not have the power of supervision over USPSTF actions needed to consider members as inferior officers, and instead due to their independence to make recommendations that they should be considered principal officers.
An additional point that the Justices made was related to the Secretary’s statutory authority to appoint Task Force members, which then implies their authority to remove members. If it is found that the statute does not clearly give the power of appointment to the Secretary, then the case may be remanded back to the lower courts to hear the issue.
Since the initial litigation, AcademyHealth has been very involved with this case, drafting and submitting multiple amicus briefs with peer organizations that support the work of the USPSTF. AcademyHealth firmly believes in the constitutionality of the USPSTF and the importance of preventive care services.
Federal Scrutiny of Medical Journals Raises Concerns
At least three medical journals, including the American College of Chest Physicians journal (CHEST), have received letters from U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. questioning their editorial practices and handling of “competing viewpoints” in scientific debates. The letter to CHEST asks about how the journal addresses misinformation, manages conflicts of interest, and accepts opposing perspectives—prompting concern among legal and medical experts about government overreach into protected editorial decisions. Critics warn the inquiry could have a chilling effect on academic publishing and scientific discourse. Journals have been asked to respond by May 2.
NIH Pauses Grants to Top Universities and Issues New Restrictions Tied to DEI and Israel Policies
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has halted new grant awards to at least six top universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell — following orders from the Trump administration, which is investigating the schools over alleged failures to address antisemitism. Internal emails show NIH staff have been told not to communicate with affected institutions. Simultaneously, new NIH rules now prohibit grants to any institutions with DEI programs that allegedly violate anti-discrimination laws or that participate in boycotts of Israeli companies. These moves mark a sweeping shift in federal research funding policy, using financial leverage to reshape higher education’s approach to diversity, civil rights, and campus activism.
Health Care Industry Urges Delay of ACA Changes That Could Affect Millions
Hospitals, insurers, and brokers are urging the Trump administration to delay implementing a proposed regulation that could cause up to 2 million people to lose Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage. The proposal would increase income verification requirements, eliminate certain special enrollment periods, and shorten the open enrollment window—changes officials say target “fraudulent and improper enrollments.” Health care groups warn the rules could be overly punitive, reduce access to care, and disrupt insurance markets. While some industry stakeholders support aspects of the proposal, they broadly agree that the timeline—targeting 2026—is too aggressive given the scale of operational adjustments required.
NIH Gathers Private Medical Data for Controversial Autism Study Led by RFK Jr.
The NIH is compiling Americans’ private medical records from federal, commercial, and wearable device data sources to support a controversial autism study championed by Health Secretary RFK Jr. Promising answers by September, the initiative has sparked concern among health researchers who question both the scientific feasibility and the ethics of large-scale data collection without clear guardrails. While the NIH frames the effort as a transformative research platform, critics warn it could compromise data privacy and misuse scientific resources in pursuit of politically driven goals.
AcademyHealth Launches Blog Series on the Importance of Data Access for Advancing Health Outcomes
AcademyHealth launched a new blog series focused on the critical role of open data in advancing public health and research. The first installment highlights the importance of data access in driving innovation, informing evidence-based policymaking, and improving health outcomes. Open, publicly available data is essential for empowering researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to address complex health challenges.
Despite longstanding bipartisan support for open data, recent actions under the current administration have threatened its availability, with thousands of government webpages, including vital health datasets, being removed. AcademyHealth is committed to advocating for the protection and restoration of these essential resources, aligning with our core policy priority: Advancing Data and Innovation to Improve Health Outcomes. This work includes promoting transparency, modernizing federal health data systems, and ensuring data is used equitably to advance health research and policy.
Previous Updates
This is the latest in a series of Situation Report updates from AcademyHealth. You can find prior issues here.
We’re pleased to offer this work as a free resource, and if you’d like to support our efforts to keep it going, we’d truly appreciate your donation. You can contribute here. Thank you for your support!