As a busy father, I understand the importance of clear and straightforward rules, especially when it comes to something as vital as our healthcare. The Supreme Court’s decision on June 28, 2024, to overturn the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. precedent—a legal principle that had courts deferring to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws—has significant implications for the healthcare sector. For over four decades, Chevron deference allowed agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to interpret and implement complex health laws, with courts typically upholding these interpretations. While this provided consistency in some areas, it also gave unelected regulatory agencies immense power to set policies with little oversight or accountability. This became glaringly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic when agencies like the CDC and FDA imposed sweeping mandates and restrictions, many of which were later criticized for being inconsistent, politically influenced, or not grounded in solid evidence. Healthcare workers experienced firsthand the overreach of these agencies, as sudden rule changes disrupted care delivery, supply chains, and workforce policies with little input from those on the frontlines (Holland & Knight, 2024).

With the overturning of Chevron deference, courts are now expected to independently interpret laws without automatically deferring to the expertise of these agencies. This shift means that regulations governing areas such as Medicare reimbursements, medical device approvals, and public health initiatives could face increased legal challenges. The absence of Chevron deference may lead to more court disputes over agency regulations, potentially causing delays in the implementation of health policies and creating uncertainty within the healthcare system (Society of Thoracic Surgeons, 2024). However, this also brings a level of necessary oversight that was missing under the old system, ensuring that agencies must justify their regulatory decisions rather than impose them unilaterally. For healthcare professionals, this change could result in a more complex regulatory environment. Without the predictability that Chevron deference provided, there may be inconsistencies in how laws are interpreted and applied across different jurisdictions. This unpredictability could increase the administrative burden on healthcare providers, as they may need to navigate varying interpretations of regulations and potentially face more frequent legal challenges (American Physical Therapy Association, 2024). However, it also provides an opportunity for more balanced decision-making, where courts—not just bureaucratic agencies—play a larger role in shaping healthcare policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference introduces a new era of judicial involvement in the interpretation of healthcare laws. While this shift may create some legal uncertainty, it also reins in the unchecked power of regulatory agencies that was particularly evident during the COVID-19 crisis. Healthcare professionals and organizations will need to prepare for a more litigious and administratively demanding environment, but they may also benefit from a system that demands more accountability and reasoned decision-making from those who regulate our industry.

References

American Physical Therapy Association. (2024, July 15). Chevron ruling implications for health care and beyond. Retrieved from https://www.apta.org/news/2024/07/15/chevron-ruling-implications

Holland & Knight. (2024, July). What does the overturning of Chevron mean for healthcare? Retrieved from https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/07/what-does-the-overturning-of-chevron-mean-for-healthcare

Society of Thoracic Surgeons. (2024, July). Implications of the Supreme Court overturning Chevron deference. Retrieved from https://www.sts.org/blog/implications-supreme-court-overturning-chevron-deference