{"id":2982,"date":"2024-06-28T20:07:08","date_gmt":"2024-06-28T20:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=2982"},"modified":"2024-06-28T20:07:09","modified_gmt":"2024-06-28T20:07:09","slug":"scotus-ruling-strips-power-from-federal-health-agencies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=2982","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n

\n\t\tThe Host\t<\/h3>\n
\tJulie Rovner
\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t@jrovner\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\tRead Julie’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\t\t\tJulie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News\u2019 weekly health policy news podcast, \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book \u201cHealth Care Politics and Policy A to Z,\u201d now in its third edition.\t\t<\/p>\n
In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what\u2019s known as the \u201cChevron deference\u201d will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state\u2019s near-total ban on abortion.<\/p>\n
This week\u2019s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.<\/p>\n

\n\t\tPanelists\t<\/h3>\n
\tJoanne Kenen
\n\tJohns Hopkins University and Politico<\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t@JoanneKenen\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\tRead Joanne’s articles.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\tVictoria Knight
\n\tAxios<\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t@victoriaregisk\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\tRead Victoria’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\tAlice Miranda Ollstein
\n\tPolitico<\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t@AliceOllstein\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\tRead Alice’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
Among the takeaways from this week\u2019s episode:<\/p>\n
\n
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws \u2014 and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.<\/li>\n
That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings \u2014 like one challenging Texas\u2019 abortion ban.<\/li>\n
In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.<\/li>\n
The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers \u2014 on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn\u2019t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump\u2019s outlandish falsehoods about abortion \u2014 and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Plus, for \u201cextra credit,\u201d the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:<\/p>\n
Julie Rovner:<\/strong> The Washington Post\u2019s \u201cMasks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States<\/a>,\u201d by Fenit Nirappil.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Victoria Knight:<\/strong> The New York Times\u2019 \u201cThe Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs<\/a>,\u201d by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Joanne Kenen:<\/strong> The Washington Post\u2019s \u201cSocial Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits<\/a>,\u201d by Lisa Rein.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Alice Miranda Ollstein:<\/strong> Politico\u2019s \u201cOpioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell<\/a>,\u201d by Ruth Reader.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Also mentioned in this week\u2019s podcast:<\/p>\n
\n
Politico\u2019s \u201c Inside the $100 Million Plan To Restore Abortion Rights in America<\/a>,\u201d by Alice Miranda Ollstein.<\/li>\n
JAMA Network Open\u2019s \u201c Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court\u2019s Dobbs<\/em> Decision<\/a>,\u201d by Dima M. Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, et al.<\/li>\n
JAMA Health Forum\u2019s \u201cChanges in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs<\/em> Decision<\/a>,\u201d by Jacqueline E. Ellison, Brittany L. Brown-Podgorski, and Jake R. Morgan.<\/li>\n
JAMA Pediatrics\u2019 \u201cInfant Deaths After Texas\u2019 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy<\/a>,\u201d by Alison Gemmill, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, et al.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\t\tCredits\t<\/h3>\n
\tFrancis Ying
\n\tAudio producer<\/p>\n
\tEmmarie Huetteman
\n\tEditor <\/p>\n
To hear all our podcasts,\u00a0click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n
And subscribe to KFF Health News\u2019 \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d on\u00a0Spotify<\/a>,\u00a0 Apple Podcasts<\/a>,\u00a0 Pocket Casts<\/a>, or wherever you listen to podcasts.<\/em><\/p>\n
KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF<\/a>.<\/p>\n
USE OUR CONTENT<\/h3>\n
This story can be republished for free (details<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
We encourage organizations to republish our content, free of charge. Here\u2019s what we ask:<\/p>\n
You must credit us as the original publisher, with a hyperlink to our kffhealthnews.org site. If possible, please include the original author(s) and KFF Health News\u201d in the byline. Please preserve the hyperlinks in the story.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important to note, not everything on kffhealthnews.org is available for republishing. If a story is labeled \u201cAll Rights Reserved,\u201d we cannot grant permission to republish that item.<\/p>\n
Have questions? Let us know at KHNHelp@kff.org<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n