The American College of Physicians supports the goals of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and participates in amicus briefs defending the ACA and improvements to the law. ACP further advocates for improvements to the Medicaid program for patients and physicians and works to protect access to coverage for vulnerable populations. 

Recent Briefs Filed on Behalf of ACP

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., v. Mehmet Oz, MD, in his official capacity as Director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., v. Mehmet Oz, MD, in his official capacity as Director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al. (Filed: 9/11/2026) 
In 2025, H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was signed into law. H.R. 1 contained a “community engagement” requirement that mandates certain Medicaid-eligible childless adults be working, volunteering, or enrolled in an educational program to remain eligible for Medicaid. Individuals can qualify for an exemption to the community engagement requirement if they have a qualifying condition that categorizes them as medically frail. In June 2026, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released an interim final rule implementing the Medicaid community engagement requirement, including the medically frail provision. Following the release of the rule, several states led by Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against CMS alleging that the rule was unlawful because it violated the Administrative Procedures Act and Spending Clause. The states argue the rule will cause millions of Medicaid enrollees to lose coverage and create substantial administrative barriers for states and other stakeholders by restricting how the frailty exemption is documented. This amicus brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement.

ACP policy opposes work-related or job search activities as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that CMS’ interim final rule will cause eligible patients to lose coverage and create unnecessary administrative burdens for both patients and physicians. They further argue that Medicaid expansion provides a lifeline for patients who are medically frail, and that this rule defies congressional intent to protect these individuals from coverage losses and burdensome documentation.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Medicaid section.

Braidwood Management, Inc., et al., v. Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

Braidwood Management, Inc., et al., v. Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (Filed: 6/27/2023)
This case involves a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) preventative service coverage requirement on the grounds that it violates religious beliefs and the Appointments Clause because the advisory boards were not appointed by the President and approved by Congress. A district court judge struck down some of the preventative coverage requirements, but this decision was stayed in appeals court. This brief was filed on behalf of Secretary Becerra in defense of the preventative service coverage requirement.

ACP has several policy statements supporting coverage of preventive services without cost sharing, including support for all insurance plans to cover an evidence-based essential health benefit package. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that encouraging patients to obtain preventative care improves health outcomes and the overall functioning of the health system. Additionally, they argue that the ACA significantly expanded access to no-cost preventative care and affirming the judgement to strike down some of the preventative coverage requirements would imperil access to preventative care for millions of Americans.

Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., v. Braidwood Management, Inc. et al. (Filed: 10/21/2024)
In June 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the requirement to cover USPSTF-recommended preventive services without cost-sharing was unconstitutional. However, the decision only applies to the plaintiffs, rather than all health plans nationwide, so the plaintiff is no longer required to abide by the preventive services coverage mandate. The federal government has appealed the ruling and filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting the U.S. Supreme Court consider the case. This brief was filed in support of the federal government's petition for certiorari, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court consider and reverse the lower court's decision.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., v. Braidwood Management, Inc. Et al. (Filed: 2/25/2025)
On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and will hear this case. This brief was filed in the merit stage of the case and argues that preventative care recommendations increase access to care, improve health outcomes, save lives, and reduce cost burdens for individuals and the national health care system.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.