32. The Supreme Court’s Chevron Decision Will Upend Regulatory Rulemaking in America

The Supreme Court struck the “Chevron Deference” precedent after it stood for 40 years. The decision will upend regulatory rulemaking in America, especially in healthcare. The decision has its pros and cons.

About The Podcast:

Millions of Americans feel confused and frustrated in their search for quality healthcare coverage.

Between out-of-control costs, countless inefficiencies, a lack of affordable universal access, and little focus on wellness and prevention, the system is clearly in dire need of change.

Hosted by healthcare policy and technology expert Marc S. Ryan, the Healthcare Labyrinth Podcast offers accessible, incisive deep dives on the most pressing issues and events in American healthcare.

Marc seeks to help Americans become wiser consumers and navigate the healthcare maze with more confidence and certainty through The Healthcare Labyrinth website and his book of the same name.

Marc is an unconventional Republican who believes that affordable universal access is a wise and prudent investment. He recommends common-sense solutions to reform American healthcare.

Tune in every week as Marc examines the latest developments in the space, offering analysis, insights, and predictions on the changing state of healthcare in America.

About The Episode:

On this episode, Marc discusses the Supreme Court striking the “Chevron Deference” precedent after it stood for 40 years. The decision will upend regulatory rulemaking in America, especially in healthcare. The decision has its pros and cons.

Key Takeaways:  

After 40 years, the Supreme Court has struck the so-called Chevron Deference precedent.

The 1984 decision instructed courts to give regulatory agencies somewhat wide latitude in issuing regulations.

A majority on the court says the precedent allowed agencies to go too far, well beyond the court’s original intent and Congress’ legislative intent as well.

Moving forward, deference is off the table and the courts will interpret ambiguous laws for appropriate implementation.

The decision will chill rulemaking across the federal government, especially healthcare.

Laws will now take far longer to be implemented and policy will be more incremental and less activist.

There are pros and cons to the ruling. The ruling attacks the administrative state but could also create chaos in rulemaking.

Connect with Marc

Marc on LinkedIn

Marc on Twitter

THL Podcast

Resources

THL’s Newsfeed

THL’s Blog

The Healthcare Labyrinth: A Guide to Navigating Health Plans and Fixing American Health Insurance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Available Now

$30.00