Updates by Reed Smith on U.S. legislative & regulatory developments affecting the health care industry
The fallout from last week’s Loper Bright/Relentless opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that prospectively eliminated Chevron deference is still not fully clear, but Reed Smith has put together a Chevron Deference Resource Center where we will gather perspectives and events to help guide industry stakeholders through the new post-Chevron world.
The…
The Supreme Court’s decision last week in the companion cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce overturned the Court’s prior precedent in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and, in the process, upended 40 years of administrative law practice by requiring a court that…
On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in two cases—Relentless v. Dep’t of Commerce, and Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo—that could have far-reaching effects on administrative law jurisprudence and the authority of federal agencies in years to come.
At the core of both cases is the Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine, which refers to how courts are to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute that it administers. Under the test of Chevron v. Natural Resources Def. Council, if an agency’s construction of an ambiguous statute is deemed to be reasonable, a court defers to the agency’s construction—even if the court believes the agency’s construction was not the best reading of the statute.
Over the last four decades, Chevron deference has faced criticism from those who argue that it is the role of courts, not federal agencies, to say what the law means. Arguing on Wednesday in support of overturning Chevron, counsel for Loper Bright argued that the Court should instead simply ask one question: “What is the best reading of the statute?”Continue Reading Supreme Court Tackles Chevron And Could Change How Agencies Regulate The Health Care Industry
In part I, we discussed whether federal district courts could exercise jurisdiction under the federal-question statute over legal challenges to overpayment determinations made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the agency’s controversial Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) program for Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations. In part II, we discussed whether MA organizations must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under the federal-question statute.
In this final installment, we discuss a litigation nuance of potential significance in this unique context: namely, whether a district court may find that a MA organization can only challenge a RADV overpayment determination in the United States Court of Federal Claims.Continue Reading A Potential Route to RADV Judicial Review: Part III
In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to establish an administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for certain claims between Section 340B covered entities and pharmaceutical manufacturers (e.g., claims of overcharging by manufacturers and claims of covered entities taking duplicative discounts or diverting Section 340B…
