Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned

Sahil Agrawal,Joseph S. Ross,Reshma Ramachandran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3654

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes implications for medicine and public health if the US Supreme Court decides to overturn or narrow Chevron deference.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Overturning of Chevron Deference: Implications for the US Healthcare System

Forrest Bohler,Callaham Brock,Lily Bohler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09099-6

IF: 5.7

2024-10-08

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:In 1984, Chevron deference was established by the US Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , granting administrative agencies broad powers to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress. This landmark decision has fostered decades of controversy among legal scholars. Opponents argued it deprived courts of their constitutional duty and inappropriately expanded the power of the administrative state, while proponents claimed federal agencies, staffed by experts in their field, possess specialized knowledge to most effectively accomplish the goals of Congress. In June 2024, the Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo effectively ended Chevron deference, altering the judicial landscape with significant implications for US healthcare. In this commentary, we discuss the various potential benefits and challenges that the US healthcare system will face in a post- Chevron landscape while also considering the ways in which clinicians will be expected to help address these obstacles.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

Daniel G. Aaron,Avery E. Emery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3723

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes how the overturning of Chevron deference would shift the ability to make policy decisions about public health and the environment from administrative agencies to the courts.

medicine, general & internal
Science in a shifting policy system

Theresa Harris,Rashada Alexander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt5684

IF: 56.9

2024-10-11

Science

Abstract:In June, the US Supreme Court overturned a 40-yearold legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which deferred to federal agencies on how regulations are interpreted in legal cases when the legislation enacted by Congress is unclear. Striking a blow against this precedent, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that Chevron was "fundamentally misguided" and that only the nation's courts have the prerogative to interpret the laws they administer. Judges across the United States now anticipate an onslaught of litigation seeking to overturn federal regulatory actions, and many of these lawsuits will turn on scientific evidence that guided those actions. Instead of deferring to the scientific and technical expertise of federal agencies, courts must now independently review the scientific record behind a challenged regulation for its persuasiveness, along with scientific findings produced by the litigating parties. It's too early to fully unpack the impact of overturning Chevron , but the scientific community must step forward to support the crafting of clear and evidence-informed legislation, and the use of scientific evidence in the courts.

multidisciplinary sciences
Chevron's Sliding Scale in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)

Gregory M. Dickinson

2023-06-05

Abstract:In Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court once again failed to reconcile the interpretive presumption against preemption with the sometimes competing Chevron doctrine of deference to agencies' reasonable statutory interpretations. Rather than resolve the issue of which principle should govern where the two principles point toward opposite results, the Court continued its recent practice of applying both principles halfheartedly, carving exceptions, and giving neither its proper weight. This analysis situates Wyeth within the larger framework of the Court's recent preemption decisions in an effort to explain the Court's hesitancy to resolve the conflict. The analysis concludes that the Court, motivated by its strong respect for congressional intent and concern to protect federalism, applies both the presumption against preemption and the Chevron doctrine on a sliding scale. Where congressional intent to preempt is clear and vague only as to scope, the Court is usually quite deferential to agency determinations, but where congressional preemptive intent is unclear, agency views are accorded less weight. The Court's variable approach to deference is defensible as necessary to prevent unauthorized incursion into areas of traditional state sovereignty, but its inherent unpredictability sows confusion among regulated parties, and the need for flexibility prevents the Court from adopting any of the more predictable across-the-board approaches to deference proposed by the Court's critics. A superior approach would combine the Court's concern for federalism with the certainty of a bright-line rule by granting deference to agency views where Congress has spoken via a preemption clause of ambiguous scope and no deference where Congress has remained silent.

General Economics
Calibrating Chevron for Preemption

Gregory M. Dickinson

2023-06-05

Abstract:Now almost three decades since its seminal Chevron decision, the Supreme Court has yet to articulate how that case's doctrine of deference to agency statutory interpretations relates to one of the most compelling federalism issues of our time: regulatory preemption of state law. Should courts defer to preemptive agency interpretations under Chevron, or do preemption's federalism implications demand a less deferential approach? Commentators have provided no shortage of possible solutions, but thus far the Court has resisted all of them. This Article makes two contributions to the debate. First, through a detailed analysis of the Court's recent agency-preemption decisions, I trace its hesitancy to adopt any of the various proposed rules to its high regard for congressional intent where areas of traditional state sovereignty are at risk. Recognizing that congressional intent to delegate preemptive authority varies from case to case, the Court has hesitated to adopt an across-the-board rule. Any such rule would constrain the Court and risk mismatch with congressional intent -- a risk it accepts under Chevron generally but which it finds particularly troublesome in the delicate area of federal preemption. Second, building on this previously underappreciated factor in the Court's analysis, I suggest a novel solution of variable deference that avoids the inflexibility inherent in an across-the-board rule while providing greater predictability than the Court's current haphazard approach. The proposed rule would grant full Chevron-style deference in those cases where congressional delegative intent is most likely -- where Congress has expressly preempted some state law and the agency interpretation merely resolves preemptive scope -- while withholding deference in those cases where Congress has remained completely silent as to preemption and delegative intent is least likely.

General Economics
Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Adam Gaffney,David U Himmelstein,Samuel Dickman,Caitlin Myers,David Hemenway,Danny McCormick,Steffie Woolhandler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.15578

2023-06-01

Abstract:Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, setting, and participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main outcomes and measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.
Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review

David T. Zhu,Lucy Zhao,Tala Alzoubi,Novera Shenin,Teerkasha Baskaran,Julia Tikhonov,Catherine Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288947

IF: 3.7

2024-03-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v . Jackson reversed the precedent set forth by Roe v . Wade , empowering individual states to regulate abortion care. This aftermath of this ruling has given rise to widespread bans, limiting the accessibility of abortion services for patients and impeding providers’ ability to deliver a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health services. Of particular concern is the disproportionate impact on medically underserved groups, further heightening existing social and structural disparities in reproductive health. Methods We conducted a scoping review to broadly evaluate the clinical and public health impact of Dobbs on patients’ access to abortion care and related reproductive health services, in addition to the training and clinical practice of healthcare providers. We searched eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science) and three preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Europe PMC) using various combinations of keywords related to ‘abortion’, ‘Dobbs’, and ‘Roe’ on March 22, 2023. Four reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and one reviewer performed data extraction for pre-identified themes. The search was conducted based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. Results Eighteen studies, comprising 12 peer-reviewed articles and 6 study abstracts, met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that Dobbs increased demand for contraception, magnified existing travel- and cost-related barriers to access, further polarized views on abortion and complex family planning on social media (e.g., Twitter), and evoked substantial concerns among medical trainees regarding their scope of practice and potential legal repercussions for providing abortion care. Conclusion In the wake of Dobbs v . Jackson , further public health and clinical interventions are urgently needed to bridge disparities in abortion care and reproductive health, mitigating the deleterious consequences of this emerging public health crisis.

multidisciplinary sciences
Implications of the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling on Local Health Systems

Gene Alzona Nisperos,Trishanaya Gabrielle G Cabanizas,Jamaica S Bulario,Jewel Mae S Cadiz,Jeanine Bianca P Lastino,Joshua Arvin A Siscar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.v58i13.8131

2024-07-31

Abstract:The Supreme Court decision on the Mandanas-Garcia petition regarding the internal revenue allotment given to local government units is a significant ruling in strengthening the concept of decentralized governance and in the delivery of services. While the ruling grants local government greater resources and financial support, the immediate implication is the full devolution of services defined in the Local Government Code, including health services. The urgent concern is how much the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling will affect local health systems. Through a review of related documents and publications, this paper presents some existing and foreseeable issues surrounding the implementation of the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling in relation to the current devolved healthcare system. In particular, challenges in implementing the ruling in relation to health devolution, the local health system process, and the Universal Health Care Act are discussed. Some concrete action points for addressing these issues are also posited for policy-makers and implementors to consider in order to ensure not just the smooth and efficient implementation of the ruling but also the continuity of care for Filipinos.
A Major Question of Power: The Vaccinate Mandate Cases and the Limits of Executive Authority

Ilya Somin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4186139

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:In January 2022, the Supreme Court decided two major cases reviewing the legality of sweeping Covid-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden Administration. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a 6-3 ruling invalidated a regulation requiring employers with 100 or more workers to compel nearly all of them to get vaccinated against Covid or wear masks on the job and take regular Covid tests. In Biden v. Missouri, decided the same day, a 5-4 Court upheld a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) policy requiring health care workers employed by institutions receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid funds to get vaccinated.Both cases addressed large-scale policies that were significant in their own right. The two cases also have important implications for the scope of executive power to set regulations (NFIB) and impose conditions on federal grants to state and local governments (Biden v. Missouri). The majority was justified in striking down the OSHA employer mandate because Congress had never clearly authorized it, and also justified in upholding the CMS mandate because it was backed by far more unequivocal statutory authorization. NFIB v. OSHA reaffirmed important constraints on the executive’s power to decide a “major question” of policy on its own, while also giving an indirect boost to constitutional nondelegation constraints on the transfer of legislative power to the White House and the administrative state. For its part, Biden v. Missouri makes clear that the executive can exercise reasonable discretion when Congress does clearly authorize it, particularly in the context of attaching conditions to federal grants to state and local governments.Part I of this article provides a brief overview of the history of the two cases and the policies they address. It is particularly notable that both were sweeping emergency measures enacted in response to the Covid pandemic, and both reached the Supreme Court on a heavily expedited basis. I also summarize the Supreme Court’s rulings. Part II defends the outcome in NFIB v. OSHA, but also criticizes key elements of the Court’s reasoning. Part III assesses Biden v. Missouri. In this case, the Court’s statutory reasoning is compelling. But the justices erred in failing to address some crucial issues related to Congress’s Spending Clause authority to set conditions on federal grants to state and local governments. Finally, part IV considers some broader implications of the two rulings. Americans across the political spectrum have much to gain from judicial enforcement of limits on executive power. The kind of sweeping unilateral authority the Biden administration claimed in NFIB could easily have been misused by future presidents of both parties. The Court’s sensible statutory interpretation in Biden v. Missouri also bodes well for the future.
The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Holly Fernandez Lynch,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.2229

IF: 11.816

2024-03-25

JAMA

Abstract:In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

medicine, general & internal
Implications of the initial braidwood v. Becerra ruling for colorectal cancer outcomes: a modeling study

Rosita Van Den Puttelaar,Kewei Sylvia Shi,Robert Smith,Jingxuan Zhao,Margaret Katana Ogongo,Matthias Harlass,Anne I Hahn,Ann G Zauber,K Robin Yabroff,Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae244

2024-10-03

Abstract:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated patient cost-sharing for USPSTF recommended services. However, if the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit fully upheld a US District Court ruling in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, 666 F. Supp. 3d 613 (N.D. Tex 2023), cost-sharing for USPSTF recommendations made after ACA passage would have been reinstated for over 150 million people. The case could still reinstate cost-sharing for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for ages 45-49 years and for polyp removal during (diagnostic) colonoscopy across all ages. Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated the potential impact on CRC outcomes, assuming early-onset CRC trends, and lower screening participation. An 8-percentage-points decline in screening participation could increase CRC incidence by 5.1%, and CRC mortality by 9.1%, with slightly lower costs due to increased cost-sharing. Larger decreases in screening participation can result in higher costs from increased incidence and delayed diagnoses.
What Should Be Clinicians' Roles in Regulatory Assessment of Prospective Interventions' Risks of Exacerbating Inequity?

Anushka Bhaskar,Daniel Carpenter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2023.204

2023-03-01

Abstract:When there is an evidence base that could be used credibly to justify expedited US Food and Drug Administration review, emergency use authorization, or approval, interventions-in-development must be evaluated in terms of their possible downstream influence on public trust and confidence in regulatory processes during a national public health crisis. When regulatory decisions express overconfidence about a prospective intervention's success, there is risk that the costliness of or misinformation about the intervention will exacerbate health inequity. A converse risk is regulators' underestimation of an intervention's value in treating populations at risk for inequitable care. This article considers the nature and scope of clinicians' roles in regulatory processes in which such risks must be considered and balanced to promote public safety and public health.
Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Amanda Barrow,Cathren Cohen,Jaclyn Serpico,Melissa Goodman,Daniel Grossman,Sarah Raifman,Ushma Upadhyay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12281

2024-07-29

Abstract:On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.
Ending Race-Conscious College Admissions and Its Potential Impact on the Infectious Disease Workforce

Florence Momplaisir,Tanya Rogo,Ronika Alexander Parrish,Shirley Delair,Mona Rigaud,Virginia Caine,Judith Absalon,Bonnie Word,Dial Hewlett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae083

2024-02-14

Open Forum Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that race-conscious consideration for college admission is unconstitutional. We discuss the consequences of this ruling on the delivery of equitable care and health system readiness to combat current and emerging pandemics. We propose strategies to mitigate the negative impact of this ruling on diversifying the infectious disease workforce.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision

Claire D Brindis,Melissa H Laitner,Ellen Wright Clayton,Susan C Scrimshaw,Barbara J Grosz,Lisa A Simpson,Sara Rosenbaum,Corale L Brierley,Melissa A Simon,Yvette Roubideaux,Bruce N Calonge,Paula A Johnson,Laura DeStefano,Ashley Bear,Kavita S Arora,Victor J Dzau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00581-6

2024-06-22

Abstract:The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.
Invited Perspective: Advancing Cumulative Approaches in Regulatory Decision Making

Andrea A. Chiger,Keeve E. Nachman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp14610

IF: 11.035

2024-03-07

Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract:Environ Health Perspect . 2024 Mar;132(3):31303. doi: 10.1289/EHP14610. Epub 2024 Mar 6. NO

environmental sciences,public, environmental & occupational health,toxicology
Navigating the Impact of the Dobbs Decision: Perspectives from Pediatric Surgeons on Reproductive Health Care

Amanpreet Brar,Sindhu V Mannava,Utsav M Patwardhan,Veronica F Sullins,Elizabeth A Berdan,Cole D Greves,Kenneth W Gow,Erica Carlisle,KuoJen Tsao,Catherine Hunter,Joanne E Baerg,J Leslie Knod

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000001092

2024-04-05

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract:SUMMARY: Nationwide abortion restrictions resulting from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision have generated confusion and uncertainty among healthcare professionals, with concerns for liability impacting clinical decision-making and outcomes. The impact on pediatric surgery can be seen in prenatal counseling for fetal anomaly cases, counseling for fetal intervention, and recommendations for pregnant children and adolescents who seek termination. It is essential that all physicians and healthcare team members understand the legal implications on their clinical practices, engage with resources and organizations which can help navigate these circumstances, and consider advocating for patients and themselves. Pediatric surgeons must consider the impact of these changing laws on their ability to provide comprehensive and ethical care and counseling to all patients.

surgery
California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome

Jon Lucas

Abstract:The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.
Equity First: Conceptualizing a Normative Framework to Assess the Role of Preemption in Public Health

Derek Carr,Sabrina Adler,Benjamin D Winig,Jennifer Karas Montez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12444

Abstract:Policy Points Preemption is a legal doctrine whereby a higher level of government may limit or even eliminate the power of a lower level of government to regulate a certain issue. Some state legislatures are using preemption with increasing regularity to thwart local policies that have the potential to reduce health inequities. Despite recent trends, preemption is not inherently adversarial to public health, equity, or good governance but rather reflects its wielder's goals and values. Existing frameworks for assessing preemption fail to reconcile its potential to both advance and hinder health equity. An equity-first preemption framework can facilitate case-by-case assessments of whether preemption is likely to worsen inequities or whether it is an appropriate response to address existing inequities. Robust empirical evidence is needed to develop and operationalize such a framework. Context: Due to the inequitable distribution of various social determinants of health, disparities in health and well-being are tied to where an individual lives. In the United States, a zip code often better predicts a person's health than their genetic code. As communities seek to redress these inequities, many find that, due to state preemption, their zip code also dictates their ability to pursue more equitable laws through local government action. Preemption is a legal doctrine whereby a higher level of government may limit or even eliminate the power of a lower level of government to regulate a certain issue. Methods: We conducted a literature review to survey existing scholarship about the effects of preemption on public health and health equity using online databases such as PubMed, WestLaw, and Google Scholar. We also cohosted a series of cross-sector, interdisciplinary research convenings with preemption, public health, and equity experts. Based on our findings, this article reviews the role of law and policy in the genesis of health inequities and highlights how preemption has both created and alleviated such inequities. We demonstrate how a normative framework rooted in redressing health inequities can advance a more just approach to preemption and outline a research agenda to support future action. Findings: Law and policy have been central to creating health inequities, and while those same tools can promote health equity, some state legislatures are using preemption with increasing regularity to thwart local policies that may improve health and equity. Nevertheless, preemption is not inherently adversarial to public health, equity, or good governance. Preemptive federal civil rights laws, for example, have countered government-sanctioned discrimination. However, existing frameworks for assessing preemption fail to reconcile its potential to both advance and hinder health equity. Conclusions: Shortcomings in existing preemption frameworks demonstrate the need for new approaches to elevate equity as a central consideration in assessing preemption. We propose the development of an equity-first preemption framework to establish evidence-based criteria for assessing when preemption will enhance or inhibit equity and a research agenda for developing the evidence necessary to inform and operationalize the framework. An equity-first reconceptualization of preemption can help ensure that local governments remain places of innovation while allowing states and the federal government to block local actions that are likely to create or perpetuate inequities.
Reproductive health and blurred professional boundaries

W Chavkin,V Breitbart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/1049-3867(95)00078-X

IF: 3.053

Women s Health Issues

Abstract:We recognize that many of the issues raised are not simple. Our proposal calls for the same thoughtful deliberation applied in other settings to be brought to bear on reproductive health care. Some have already tried alternative approaches. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a university hospital neonatologist and the district attorney have collaborated to create an alternative to sentencing program for women who are arrested for drug-related crimes and found to be both pregnant and drug addicted. Rather than proceed with criminal sanctions, these women are offered entry into a drug treatment program that is geared to families with young children and run by the pediatrics department. Here, the physician and the district attorney collaboratively responded in ways congruent with the professional integrity of each. In another example in Portland, Oregon, physicians, drug treatment providers, and child protective social service representatives cooperatively defeated a legislative proposal to mandatorily test and report pregnant women for illicit drug use and, instead, formed a task force to jointly develop state policy regarding the issue. Drug use, HIV infection, child abuse, and poverty are all cause for alarm. Yet it is critical that our frustration about these difficult problems not be translated into blaming individuals for "deviance," or into short-term inadequate responses. In developing policy we should consider the impact on the legal and ethical rights and obligations of both patient and physician. For every course, we should evaluate both immediate and long-term efficacy, the consequences for the doctor-patient relationship, and the consequences for medical integrity. In the midst of the present regulatory and fiscal turmoil affecting health care, we urge physicians to be careful and deliberate in the policies they embrace and the actions they take.

Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned

The Overturning of Chevron Deference: Implications for the US Healthcare System

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

Science in a shifting policy system

Chevron's Sliding Scale in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)

Calibrating Chevron for Preemption

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review

Implications of the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling on Local Health Systems

A Major Question of Power: The Vaccinate Mandate Cases and the Limits of Executive Authority

The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Implications of the initial braidwood v. Becerra ruling for colorectal cancer outcomes: a modeling study

What Should Be Clinicians' Roles in Regulatory Assessment of Prospective Interventions' Risks of Exacerbating Inequity?

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Ending Race-Conscious College Admissions and Its Potential Impact on the Infectious Disease Workforce

Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision

Invited Perspective: Advancing Cumulative Approaches in Regulatory Decision Making

Navigating the Impact of the Dobbs Decision: Perspectives from Pediatric Surgeons on Reproductive Health Care

California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome

Equity First: Conceptualizing a Normative Framework to Assess the Role of Preemption in Public Health

Reproductive health and blurred professional boundaries