On June 21, there was a conclusion of sorts to the Braidwood vs. Becerra case, which, if you’ll recall, involved a Texas business owner and 6 individuals that argued that “requirements for free preventive care are unconstitutional” in that “the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends preventative services based on clinical evidence, was not a constitutionally appointed body and that policies stemming from their recommendations should not be required of anyone.”
Preventive care is under threat: PrEP now or pay later
Let’s dive in.
A long-awaited court decision has finally arrived, with disturbing health implications: The ruling exempts select employers from fully covering a daily pill that can prevent a person’s chances of getting HIV by up to 99 percent.
Note the propaganda present in the very first paragraph: the evil courts will be denying coverage for a pill that’s almost perfect! That “99%” figure gets thrown around with abandon, although I notice here that the language has shifted from “PrEP is >99% effective!” to “prevents a person’s chances of getting HIV by up to 99%.” Well, that’s essentially meaningless, as this includes every possible efficacy rate including 0%. I’m curious if this represents a shift in language that will continue.
On June 21, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals agreed with Braidwood that the task force was not constitutionally appointed, but limited the ruling to the plaintiffs in the case because they had brought arguments for a nationwide remedy too late in the process.
So while free PrEP is mostly safe for now, the Braidwood case opens the door for others to seek future exemptions — not just for PrEP but for other recommended preventive services.
So, this ruling doesn’t even have super widespread implications, given that it is limited to the small number of plaintiffs that brought suit. But it might portend disaster.
The court has “put down a ticking timebomb,” wrote Jose Abrigo, HIV Project Director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York. Their “erroneous conclusion that the task force is unconstitutional lays the groundwork for other courts to reach the same conclusion.”
A ticking time bomb? Be afraid, be very afraid. Have you noticed that every time the mainstream discusses PrEP, the language is so apocalyptic? If we lose the chance to retain 1.2 million people in care, whatever will happen to their health our profit margin? I find it quite interesting that the article claims that 1.2 million people in the United States are in need of PrEP, as 1.2 million is, coincidentally, the estimate of the number of “HIV” positive Americans. From the article: “Such a change would be devastating for the 1.2 million people who need access to HIV PrEP medications.” So PrEP doubles their target market. Interesting.
The article continues with the same sort of ominous language.
While the FDA approved the first PrEP drug in 2012, only a few people could get it for years due to its high out-of-pocket costs. Even with insurance, a 30-day supply of PrEP could run several hundred dollars. Patients also bore the costs of HIV testing and visit deductibles and co-pays. It was part of an unjust system where only the privileged could buy freedom from HIV.
In 2020, a remedy emerged. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave oral HIV PrEP an “A” rating, meaning that, starting in 2021, most private insurers had to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for $0 cost sharing for preventive services, including the PrEP medication and required visits and tests.
Did you know that you can buy Truvada on Amazon? (Fun fact—check the price.) This U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is the very task force that was deemed by the Fifth Circuit to have been unconstitutionally appointed.
What might be the fallout if PrEP is no longer free?
Re-introducing costs for PrEP will have harsh consequences. In our recent study in the journal Health Affairs, even a small increase from $0 to $10 doubled the risk that patients will not pick up their PrEP prescriptions, substantially raising their chances for getting HIV over the next year.
If PrEP’s out-of-pocket costs jumped from $0 to $100 or more, abandonment rates would likely be six to eight times higher, with over one-third of patients not picking up their prescriptions. Our study simulated just the effects of PrEP prescription costs rising — there would likely be even more drop-offs if costly visits and HIV tests are included.
I’m getting so tired of the coercive language being used around selling patients drugs for a condition they don’t even have. From retention in care to abandonment rates, it’s all so manipulative. I’m happy that their study “simulated the effects” of rising prescription costs; we all know that models only output quantifications of information we assume to be true. I’ll also point you to the results of the lenacapavir trial, which inadvertently showed that the “rates of ‘HIV’ acquisition” on either Truvada or Descovy were not significantly better than the “background level” that would be achieved without PrEP, so it’s totally unclear what effect this would actually have on rates of “HIV” acquisition.
The piece concludes with suggestions as to how to keep PrEP and other preventive care free for all. From the article:
All preventive care should be free, including PrEP. Policymakers need to take an important first step by reintroducing and passing the PrEP Access and Coverage Act, which would require all private and public plans to cover PrEP with no out-of-pocket costs, and create a national PrEP program to bridge gaps for those without insurance. Critically, the law would also cover lab tests and include enforcement provisions to ensure plans comply with the law.
[…]
Those who are least equipped to bear the costs stand to lose the most. We need our legislators to recognize the value of preventive care and make it all as accessible as possible. Preventive care is too valuable to be a privilege. It should be a right.
I guess it depends on what type of “preventive care” under discussion, doesn’t it? Let’s don’t forget that these same individuals and organizations are the very ones that coerced billions of people the world over to take a barely tested “vaccine” that is useless at best. Pardon me if I’m skeptical of their recommendations.
My new Kindle ebook, The Truvada and PrEP Disaster, is available on Amazon.
PreppPPoganda
This strikes me as being adjacent to the recent Supreme Court ruling that abandons the Chevron doctrine. Essentially this board was dictating what people had to do, much like under the Chevron doctrine federal agencies were granted the right to interpret law as they saw fit, cuz they're the 'authorities' on a given subject. It's good there's some pushback on this, because we all know these agencies are only going to do things that promote the narrative.