At the heart of the Chevron decision and its repeal is the debate over whether agencies have the authority to issue and enforce regulations that are not explicitly spelled out in federal law. Agencies are often tasked with implementing broad legislative mandates, and create rules and guidelines that, while not laws themselves, carry the weight of law.
The repeal of Chevron deference is driven by concerns that agencies may overstep their boundaries, issuing regulations that extend beyond what Congress intended. Critics argue that this can lead to a form of governance by unelected officials, where agencies wield too much power in interpreting and enforcing laws. The fear is that agencies could impose significant obligations or restrictions without adequate oversight, leading to regulatory overreach and potentially infringing on individual rights and freedoms.
There are specific concerns about how the Chevron repeal could affect the healthcare industry. The Chevron repeal could lead to:
1. Increased Legal Challenges: Hospitals and healthcare providers may challenge agency interpretations more frequently, leading to prolonged legal battles and delayed policy implementation.
2. Regulatory Uncertainty: Without Chevron deference, agencies may hesitate to issue interpretative rules or guidance, fearing judicial overturn. This could result in a lack of clear regulatory direction for healthcare providers.
3. Inconsistent Enforcement: Different courts may interpret regulations variably, leading to inconsistent enforcement and compliance standards across states and jurisdictions.
These concerns, however, are likely to be unfounded, at least in the healthcare space, for the following reasons:
1.       Healthcare compliance is governed by robust legal frameworks that are well-established and deeply integrated into the healthcare industry. These frameworks are not subject to the whims of agency interpretation, making the repeal of Chevron less impactful.
2.       The federal sentencing guidelines form the bedrock of compliance programs in the healthcare industry. These guidelines have been approved by Congress and it is difficult to see how the repeal of Chevron can be applied where regulations have Congressional approval.
3.       Regulation across the healthcare sector is achieved, namely, through the publication of final rules. These rules, developed by agencies like CMS, OCR, and the FDA, are subject to a detailed process of review and approval from Congress. Again, it is difficult to make a case that the repeal of Chevron would have any impact where regulations have robust Congressional oversight.
The repeal of Chevron deference undoubtedly raises concerns about regulatory interpretation and enforcement. However, the impact on healthcare is likely to be less dramatic than feared. The structured process for approving final rules and their incorporation into the CFR further reinforces the stability and resilience of healthcare compliance.
Comments