{"id":21091,"date":"2023-04-07T08:12:11","date_gmt":"2023-04-07T12:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=21091"},"modified":"2023-04-07T08:12:12","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T12:12:12","slug":"no-cost-preventive-services-are-now-in-jeopardy-heres-what-you-need-to-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=21091","title":{"rendered":"No-Cost Preventive Services Are Now in Jeopardy. Here\u2019s What You Need to Know"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(By Julie Appleby for Kaiser Health News)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a federal judge in Texas declared unconstitutional a popular part of the Affordable Care Act that ensures no-cost preventive care for certain services, such as screening exams for conditions such as diabetes, hepatitis, and certain cancers, it left a lot of people with a lot of questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the face of it, the March 30 decision could affect ACA and job-based insurance plans nationwide and a host of medical services now free for patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean, really, for people with insurance? Policy and legal experts say there are some unanswered questions and a whole lot of nuances. Continue reading here…<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice:<\/strong> The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; medicarereport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(By Julie Appleby for Kaiser Health News) When a federal judge in Texas declared unconstitutional a popular part of the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12,20,200,19],"tags":[97,166,385,203],"class_list":["post-21091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-affordable-care-act-aca","category-health-care-general","category-health-care-redesign","category-health-insurance","category-legal-actionscourt-decisions","tag-aca","tag-health-insurance","tag-healthcare-costs","tag-preventive-services"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21091"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21091\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21092,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21091\/revisions\/21092"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}