Courtwatcher's Bookmarks: Chevron and More

The health consultancy Advisory Board has one of the most detailed reviews I've seen on the LOPER Chevron decision.  By Natatlie Trebes et al.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2024/07/09/chevron-decision-ec

See also Cass at Beckers Hospital Review:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/how-the-supreme-courts-chevron-deference-ruling-could-affect-healthcare.html  

At National Law Review, see Burns et al. on the SCOTUS "regulatory reset" and provider reimbursement:

https://natlawreview.com/article/provider-reimbursement-disputes-go-back-1984-following-supreme-courts-regulatory

See also an article at NLR by Delionado et al., on CORNER POST and some impacts on regulatory "statute of limitations" issues:

https://natlawreview.com/article/scotus-sides-small-trucking-company-major-victory-business-community

Chat GPT 4

Summary of Articles on Recent SCOTUS Decisions

1. Advisory Board on the Chevron Decision:
• The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine means courts no longer defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws.
• This will significantly impact healthcare, as agencies lose flexibility in applying statutes to complex and evolving issues.
• The decision raises questions about the future role of Congress, the ability of courts to handle technical matters, and potential increased litigation challenging agency regulations.
• Key areas affected include Medicare drug price negotiations, surprise billing, and MA payments.
• The shift may result in slower regulatory processes and more legal challenges to existing regulations.
2. Becker's Hospital Review on the Impact of Chevron Ruling:
• The ruling is expected to lead to more legal challenges to Medicare payment rules and other healthcare regulations.
• The rollback of Chevron deference requires Congress to be more prescriptive in legislation.
• Regulatory agencies like HHS may face difficulties in adapting to this new landscape without Chevron.
• Pandemic-era rules and FDA regulations could be at risk, affecting healthcare policy and administration significantly.
• The ruling could disrupt federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which rely on agency expertise for stable administration.
3. National Law Review on Provider Reimbursement Disputes:
• The Loper Bright decision, which overruled Chevron, returns courts to their pre-1984 role of interpreting Congressional statutes without deferring to agency interpretations.
• This change is expected to increase provider challenges to CMS actions and could lead to more favorable outcomes for providers in disputes.
• Key areas of concern include Medicare overpayment demands, self-audits, potential refunds, and overpayment appeals.
• The new framework will require providers to navigate a more complex legal environment, potentially leading to more litigation and varying interpretations by different courts.
4. National Law Review on the Corner Post Decision:
• In Corner Post, the Supreme Court ruled that an APA claim's statute of limitations starts when the plaintiff is injured by a final agency action, not when the action is first issued.
• This decision allows businesses and individuals to challenge government regulations long after they are issued, provided they bring suit within six years of being harmed by the regulation.
• The ruling could lead to an increase in lawsuits against longstanding regulations, potentially burdening federal agencies and courts.
• Businesses not in operation at the time of a regulation's passage are now able to challenge such regulations if they are subsequently harmed by them.

These articles collectively illustrate the significant implications of recent SCOTUS decisions on regulatory processes, especially in healthcare, highlighting the potential for increased legal challenges and the need for more precise legislative guidance.