More than two dozen HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations and LGBTQ supportive health centers have filed two separate friend-of-the-court or amicus legal briefs supporting the appeal of a Texas court decision earlier this year that the advocacy groups say would greatly reduce health insurance coverage of the HIV prevention medication known as PrEP.

The two amicus briefs filed by the advocacy organizations in June express strong support for the Biden administration’s appeal of a March 30, 2023, ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. O’Connor’s ruling struck down a provision of the U.S. Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to provide full coverage of preventive care services without co-pay or cost-sharing fees, including coverage for PrEP.

“As an organization representing thousands of physicians and other health care professionals working on the frontlines of the HIV epidemic in communities across the country, we are deeply concerned about the harmful and far-reaching impacts this decision will have if allowed to stand,” said Dr. Michelle Cespedes, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, one of the groups that filed the second of the two amicus briefs opposing the court ruling.

“Reinstating cost-sharing for PrEP would directly cause tens of thousands of preventable cases of HIV transmission and set back decades of progress toward curbing the epidemic,” she said in a statement.

In response to the appeal of the District court decision filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued an administrative stay placing the lower court ruling on hold while the appeal process moves forward.

The case is called Braidwood Management Inc. et. al v. Becerra. Court records show that Braidwood, a management services company described as Christian owned, Kelley Orthodontics, also described as Christian owned, and six individuals in Texas jointly filed the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in September 2022.

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, whose name appears on the case, is among the federal officials in charge of administering the Affordable Care Act. The law is sometimes referred to as “Obama Care” after former President Barack Obama who initiated the expansive healthcare legislation that was passed by Congress.

The Braidwood company and the other plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act provision related to preventive care argue in court filings that forcing them to provide financial coverage to PrEP, among other things, is unconstitutional and violates their religious rights under the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Notably, the plaintiffs state the requirement to cover PrEP ‘imposes a substantial burden on the religious freedom of those who oppose homosexual behavior on religious grounds,’ claiming further that PrEP drugs ‘facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,’” according to KFF, on online independent news publication that covers health policy issues.

The publication, which analyzed the court filings in the case, says the plaintiffs also contend that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which they argue requires government officials making important health care decisions under the Affordable Care Act be nominated to office by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In their lawsuit challenging the preventive services provision, the plaintiffs note that under the Affordable Care Act, decisions on how to define preventive services that must be covered under the act are now made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose members are not confirmed by the Senate.

The U.S. government appeal of the Texas District court ruling, and the amicus briefs filed by the AIDS advocacy organizations and other groups, including D.C. ‘s Whitman-Walker Health and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, strongly dispute the plaintiff’s assertions.

“We must not allow a couple of individuals who want to discriminate against people who use PrEP and don’t support insurance coverage of preventive services, such as HIV and hepatitis B and C testing, to destroy the public health of our country,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV-Hepatitis Policy Institute, one of 25 advocacy group that filed a joint amicus brief on June 23.

“We filed this amicus brief to emphasize the important role testing for HIV and hepatitis plays in linking people to life-saving medications and, in the case of hepatitis C, curative treatment, along with the importance of helping people know if they have an infectious disease,” Schmid said in a statement.

“We sought to emphasize that purchasing insurance that includes coverage of PrEP for HIV in no way burdens the ability of plaintiffs to exercise their religion,” said Richard Hughes IV, the lead attorney for the joint amicus filing by the 25 advocacy groups. “In fact, we suggest to the court that granting exemptions for PrEP coverage would have far-reaching and absurd consequences for our society,” Hughes said.

The other amicus brief filed June 28 by the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), which represent thousands of physicians and other health care providers throughout the U.S., points out that if the Texas lower court ruling is allowed to stand, tens of thousands of people who rely on preventive care coverage from their health insurance policies will likely lose that coverage.

“Copays and deductibles deter people from accessing healthcare,” said Ben Klein, Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, known as GLAD, which is representing the two groups that filed the second amicus brief. “PrEP is nearly 100 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, but it is already underutilized, particularly among Black and Latino communities,” Klein said in a statement.

“As the brief filed today by HIVMA and NASTAD demonstrates, allowing the lower court’s ruling in Braidwood v. Bacerra to stand will exacerbate racial health disparities, increase new HIV diagnoses by the tens of thousands, and have devastating consequences on our efforts to end the epidemic,” Klein said.

Klein told the Washington Blade that the District court ruling, if not overturned on appeal, will adversely impact people at risk for other diseases, not just HIV. He points out that the higher copays and insurance deductible costs will impact cancer prevention screenings, including colonoscopies, by greatly raising the insurance related costs for people who may not be able to afford to pay those costs.

“So, we’re talking about a staggering impact that when you look at the range of harms and costs, it’s unfathomable,” he said. “And so that’s why a lot of the amicus briefs focused on that.”

Klein said a decision on the appeal by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, which covers the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, was not expected to take place until sometime next year, with oral arguments by the attorneys likely to take place later this year.