The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take up a case involving steep Medicare Part B payment cuts to 340B hospital-operated outpatient sites took many legal experts by surprise. However, attorneys that 340B Report conferred with believe the court will be using the case to reexamine a nearly 40-year-old legal doctrine regarding how federal agencies draft and adopt regulations.
Known as the “Chevron deference,” the doctrine stems from a 1984 case that pitted the oil giant against the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Supreme Court ruled at that time that judges should defer to policies promulgated by federal agencies as long as they are reasonable and Congress did not devise legislation to address the specific issue at hand. In a situation where there are any ambiguities in a law, the federal agency can interpret it on its own so long as it does not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take up a case involving steep Medicare Part B payment cuts to 340B hospital-operated outpatient sites took many legal experts by surprise. However, attorneys that 340B Report conferred with believe the court will be using the case to reexamine a nearly 40-year-old legal doctrine regarding how federal agencies draft and adopt regulations.
Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content
If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
