The Supreme Court has made a series of decisions that have implications for healthcare. Below is an overview of these decisions.
The Chevron deference
In a 6-3 ruling last week, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, which was established in 1984. The Chevron deference “requires courts to defer to the judgment of administrative agencies when dealing with vague or ambiguous statutes,” according to a blog post from the law firm O’Connell and Aronowitz. Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the case, while Justice Elena Kagan dissented (joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson).
What’s Keeping Healthcare CIOs Up at Night: How Health Systems Automate Routine Phone Calls to Improve Workforce Effectiveness and Reduce Agent Burnout
With hospitals struggling to retain staff and value-based care shrinking healthcare revenues, health systems must look to technology resources to become more efficient, without losing sight of patient care or staff support.
The Supreme Court considered jointly two cases that questioned whether the Chevron deference should be overturned: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These two cases relate to the fishing industry, but have significant implications for the healthcare industry as well, according to KFF.
“The decision will likely impede the ability of executive agencies to implement laws passed by Congress. … While agency final rules will still have the force of law, there will be more of an incentive to challenge these rules in a court that now will not have to give any weight to agency decisions and expertise where statutes are not clear,” KFF stated in a recent brief. “More regulations will be overturned, placing a real barrier on implementing key health care protections such as prescription drug affordability in Medicare, eligibility rules for Medicaid beneficiaries, infectious disease control and public safety standards, as well as consumer protections for those in self-insured private employer-sponsored plans.”
Mifepristone access
In this case, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an anti-abortion physician group, challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s approval and regulation of the abortion pill mifepristone. The FDA approved the drug in 2000 and later took steps to expand access to the drug, including allowing non-physicians to prescribe mifepristone and permitting the drug to be prescribed without an in-person visit. Medication abortions account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S.
The Impact Brands: Empowering Wellness Through Natural and Holistic Solutions
In an era of escalating healthcare costs and a growing preference for natural, holistic approaches to health, The Impact Brands emerges as a collective of diverse brands dedicated to supporting overall wellness through natural means.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 13 that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue. The decision allows mifepristone to remain available via telehealth and at pharmacies.
“Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Emergency abortions in Idaho
In an unsigned 6-3 decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that hospitals in Idaho that receive federal funds have to allow emergency abortions to stabilize patients (despite the fact that the state has a strict abortion ban). The decision did not delve into the substance of the case. Instead, the justices temporarily restored a lower-court ruling, which permitted hospitals to conduct emergency abortions without facing prosecution under Idaho’s abortion ban. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch all dissented.
The case centered around the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates certain hospitals to stabilize or transfer patients in need of emergency care. The Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022, arguing that Idaho’s abortion ban goes against this law.
Photo: Valerii Evlakhov, Getty Images
