Supreme Court ruling may require much more specific legislation

The Supreme Court recently overturned a precedent that established what is known as the Chevron deference doctrine, which held that federal regulatory agencies have broad powers to interpret legislation, including specifying details not delineated in legislation. With the precedent overturned, KFF Family News points out that many facets of health policy might be reshaped. For example, the No Surprises Act, which tries to protect patients from unexpected medical bills, may need to be refined to be more explicit, or current regulation might need to be rolled back.

Since the Supreme Court ruled that the judicial branch will exercise more oversight of federal regulation, policy can be awkward as different judges can rule differently on the same policy issue: "'You could have eight or nine of 11 different views of the courts,' said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law." It seems likely that many different parties will challenge various policies, potentially causing years -- if not decades -- of regulatory turmoil in health care and other industries.