The CDC estimates one million people in the country would benefit from HIV prevention medications known as PrEP.
However, the drugs are in jeopardy of being less accessible to people who pay for them with their employer’s insurance.
This week, a federal judge in Fort Worth agreed with a group of Christian conservatives that Affordable Care Act requirements covering HIV prevention drugs violate their religious freedom.
One of the plaintiffs, Dr. Steven Hotze of Katy, said he is unwilling to pay for a health insurance plan for his employees that covers drugs such as Truvada and Descovy, “because these drugs facilitate or encourage homosexual behavior, which is contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs.”
PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV by 99% when taken as recommended, according to the CDC.
Vivian Ho, Health Economist with Rice University Baker Institute, said if employers don’t cover prevention, it could ultimately cost them more.
“If you’re self-insuring and they, therefore, get HIV, you’re gonna have to cover all of those costs of caring for that patient and that’s not cheap,” she said.
Someone, an employee, or an employer must pay for the drug.
Unless, like with COVID vaccines, the government steps in.
“What if the government says, ‘We’re going to cover PrEP and we’re going to tell the pharmaceutical companies how much we’re going to pay for that drug, we might get a better price,’” Ho said.
Ho said there are contradicting studies on whether risky behavior increases when medical prevention is available.
“That study that I have seen on this particular issue is not a very strong study. It’s an initial study asking a very important question,” Ho said. “If you look at some of the studies of insurance and expansion and how it affects other risky behaviors, not sex behaviors, but there have been studies that looked at the effect of expanding Medicaid and in states that expanded Medicaid, they did not find any additional evidence of risky behavior like more smoking or more drunk driving and things like that. So, there are studies going both ways. And we really can’t say yet whether this is a valid concern by the plaintiffs.”