By: Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.

On June 28th, the Supreme Court – in a 6 to 3 ruling – overturned the “Chevron Deference Doctrine.” As we have reported, the Chevron Deference Doctrine is a 40-year-old judicial precedent directing courts to defer to a Federal Department’s interpretation of a statute when the Department develops implementing regulations. Here, the court must uphold the regulation if evidence shows that the Federal Department reasonably interpreted the statute, even if the court disagrees with how the statute was interpreted.

It is currently unclear how far-reaching this Supreme Court ruling might turn out to be, but we are already seeing policymakers respond. For example, Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senator Cassidy (R-LA), sent a letter to HHS asking how the decision to invalidate the Chevron Deference Doctrine will affect existing and future regulations implementing the Federal surprise billing regulations. Will we see more lawsuits from providers challenging the Federal IDR process and/or seeking to nullify the Qualifying Payment Amount?

Self-insured plans and insurance carriers are also asking whether the dismantling of the Chevron Deference Doctrine will impact the proposed Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) regulations. Payers have already argued that the proposed requirements and mathematical tests are inconsistent with the statute and contrary to Congress’s original intent, making these proposed MHPAEA regs ripe for a legal challenge once they are finalized. 

Could we also see lawsuits filed against less controversial regulations that have long been opposed by a particular sector of the healthcare industry? Take the Transparency in Coverage Rule, for example, which has been – and effectively continues to be – opposed by the insurance carrier community.  

Any regulations issued by the next Administration (regardless of whether it is a Biden 2nd Term or another Trump Presidency) will also have a perilous journey through the process, as stakeholders – whether politically motivated or based on practical merits – will likely be quick to challenge them.

This ruling will also put immense pressure on Congress when writing and considering legislation that serves as the underlying statute that a Federal Department must implement through a regulation. Congress won’t be able rely on the Federal Departments to fill-in-the-blanks that Congress inadvertently or purposefully left open. Congress also won’t be able to direct the Federal Departments to develop a regulatory process without spelling out in the statute specific guidelines and parameters the Department must follow

SIIA will continue to monitor how policymakers and healthcare stakeholders respond to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Deference Doctrine. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Chris Condeluci at (ccondeluci@siia.org) or Anthony Murrello (amurrello@siia.org).

SOURCE: Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. personal communication, July 3, 2024)