Expert on out-of-pocket health costs available to comment on Texas court ruling overturning free preventive care

For more than two decades, A. Mark Fendrick, M.D., has studied how the amount of money a patient has to pay out of their own pocket for health care affects the amount and type of care they receive.

He is available to comment on the potential impacts of a Texas court ruling in the case of Braidwood v Becerra (formerly Kelley v Becerra).

The ruling, which is expected to be appealed, overturns provisions of the Affordable Care Act that have given patients access to certain preventive care services without cost for more than a decade. That includes services rated by the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce with a grade of A or B based on evidence of their impact. 

Fendrick heads the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. which supports the reduction or elimination of consumer out-of-pocket costs for essential health care services.

Last year, he and colleagues published a review of studies on the impact of no-cost preventive care. That review is summarized here. 

“Our findings suggest that low-socioeconomic status groups, and those who experience the greatest financial barriers to care, appear to benefit the most from cost-sharing elimination,” Fendrick said at the time.

Also at the time, when the Texas case was still pending, Fendrick noted, “Any potential removal of the Affordable Care Act’s provision to eliminate patient costs for preventive care could have negative implications, especially for those who are financially vulnerable.”