Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments appealing the Chevron doctrine; coined from a 1984 case – Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council. The doctrine essentially says that the courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of federal law.

But here’s the thing…Legislation inherently has gaps that that are left up the agencies to fill in with regulation and guidance. How could someone in Congress necessarily know everything about an area that they didn’t devote their careers to? Pick any topic and it becomes a rabbit hole of

When the Inflation Reduction Act passed, us policy wonks dove in and got our highlighters (digital or IRL) and read the legislation. And reread the legislation. And cross-referenced the legislation. We came up with a list of unanswered questions. Even today (this morning in fact) I’m having conversations about how the law will be implemented because we don’t yet have regulation out on all parts it.

There are people at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who are devoting their year(s) to trying to answer these questions. And, while I don’t always like what they come up with, it is generally within reason. These are people who devote their careers to trying to get it right in a specific area of policy.

As pointed out in the oral arguments, the Chevon deference has not been used in years. It could be that nothing changes with it gone. And yet given where we are politically, how likely is that?

Getting rid of the Chevron doctrine could destabilize policy. Right now, we’re moving ahead with the Inflation Reduction Act while also knowing that there are court cases deciding its fate and it all feels a little “what if.” Imagine if almost every regulation had a whiff of “what if?” All this is to say that if you weren’t following last week because it didn’t sound relevant to health policy, guess again.