Kenneth (Kenny) White on LinkedIn: The US Sup Ct will take up a case this week that may have major… (2024)

🌟 Thank you for sharing! From my DSP perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a great step in the right direction.I'd like to share some of my views on these issues below:🌟 Advocating for Industry-Specific Well-Defined Service Standards in Human Services 🌟🇺🇸OMB Circular A-119 https://lnkd.in/eGP8T7Ei promotes voluntary consensus standards in various sectors, focusing mainly on technical standards. These principles of efficiency, transparency, and reducing regulatory redundancy can benefit the human services industry too.🔹By developing Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) https://lnkd.in/ea3TXsQ3, https://lnkd.in/e2wvhSuZ, https://lnkd.in/eMCQQRbw for human services, we can create industry-specific well-defined service standards based on the SOC. These service standards follow the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) https://lnkd.in/eW9RnJK8 can unify language in relevant laws and regulations, and avoid redundant and excessive regulations.🇺🇸OIRA https://lnkd.in/e-ZD5GVt oversees the implementation of A-119, ensuring compliance with these standards.🗽📜The recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo emphasizes the need for clear and consistent standards. Overturning the Chevron doctrine, the ruling limits agencies' powers of statutory interpretation, placing more responsibility on the courts. This change highlights the importance of industry-specific well-defined service standards based on the SOC to guide regulations and ensure fair and effective practices.🔹Developing and implementing consensus voluntary well-defined service standards based on the SOC in the human services industry can help address these challenges. It provides a foundation for the OMB to create a similar circular to A-119, tailored for human services, ensuring best practices and consistent terminology across the sector.🗽Let’s advocate for the development of these well-defined service standards to improve regulations and support the human services industry, ultimately benefiting those we serve. 💪#HumanServices #StandardsDevelopment #PolicyReform #SOC #InclusiveCare #IDD

An illuminating post here on the ridiculous process of Parliamentary "wash up" when a general election is called. I read this while logging in to comment on this very issue.When the Prime Minister decides to call an election, Bills which have been worked on for years, including ones which have cross-party support, suddenly fall. The priority is given to the ones the governing party think will win them most votes - and, as they want to distinguish their position from the opposition, these can be the most contentious.Often, very promising legislation that is lost at this point never makes it to the statute books. A classic example is the Local Government Finance Bill which was lost when Theresa May called a general election in 2017. While this may have been imperfect, there were so many good, helpful measures in it - which had the backing of local government, central government and MPs from across the House of Commons. Local government finance has never recovered from this setback.If the incoming government in July wants to do one single thing to improve governance in this country, fixed term Parliaments would be a great help. Apart from exceptional circ*mstances, everybody would know when Parliament is to be dissolved for the next general election. Parliamentary business could be planned with far greater certainty on that basis, doing away with this ridiculous and harmful rushed process of wash-up.And if the incoming government wants to do one single thing to help councils struggling with unmanageable budgets get on a path to long term financial sustainability, they could bring back the Local Government Finance Bill - just as it was before the 2017 election.

Another stab in the heart of democracy from the Maga Supreme Court. The Chevron doctrine was created by the Reagan-era Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 and has since become the most cited Supreme Court decision in administrative law.Under Chevron deference, courts would defer to how to expert federal agencies interpret the laws they are charged with implementing provided their reading is reasonable — even if it's not the only way the law can be interpreted.It allowed Congress to rely on the expertise within the federal government when implementing everything from health and safety regulations to environmental and financial laws.In the wake of the court's ruling, it's expected that more federal rules will be challenged in the courts and judges will have greater discretion to invalidate agency actions.Think of challenges to abortion pills, clean air laws, health law - anything that helps big business, big polluters to roll back administrative laws that restrict their ability to do harm ...More challenges to medications can now be heard by right wing Judges bought by superpac money ....their is already an example of that The Koch network successfully attracted Clarence For Sale Thomas, who voted against the doctrine, to speak at at least one of its donor events in 2018, ProPublica reported last year.It's unclear who purchased Thomas' flight to the 2018 event, as he never reported it in his annual financial disclosure form. Thomas has attended at least two of such events in past years.Essentially this is more power for vested interests, more incentive to buy judges and also the age of idiots continue - demonisation of experts and devaluation of experts. The roll back to the dark ages continues, meanwhile let is continue business as usual ...https://lnkd.in/gpzCt8wh

1

As other countries champion a return to having “experts” in the bureaucracy, the US Supreme Court's recent decision to limit the power of federal agencies to enact regulations stings. This could impact everything from healthcare to public health and safety. Thousands of regulations on the environment, health, worker safety, etc. could be weakened or eliminated. This might cause a litigation surge, so expect more legal challenges to existing regulations, creating uncertainty for businesses.The decision weakens the "Chevron deference" standard, giving courts more power to strike down regulations previously upheld due to agency expertise. How will this decision impact specific health regulations? What new regulatory approaches are needed to ensure public safety and still allow innovation/experimentation?#HealthCare #PolicyResearch #Regulations #SupremeCourt

6

This is a must read.If you want to know how US healthcare is going to be affected for decades to come, you need to read this analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation on the impact of the CHEVRON SCOTUS decision this last week.https://lnkd.in/gTE4uigQ.#disrupthealthcare

12

If you wanted to get rid of the Information Commissioner, it’s surprisingly hard to do. The Commissioner can ask to be relieved of office by the Monarch at any time. Due to a legislative co*ck-up that wasn’t her fault, Liz Denham had to do this because her term in office was accidentally overextended.Otherwise, the only way to remove the Commissioner is on an address from both house of Parliament; technically, the resultant sacking would also have to be done by the King. Such a removal can only happen after a motion in either house, brought forward by a minister of the Crown.That motion can only be based on one of two things – either the Commissioner is guilty of serious misconduct or they no longer fulfil the conditions required to carry out their role. This is a tall order; it significantly bolsters the Commissioner’s independence, but could conceivably be a problem.As a Corporation Sole, all functions, powers and responsibilities are concentrated on one person’s shoulders; all tasks performed by other people must be delegated. The Commissioner doesn’t technically answer to anyone. By convention, successive Commissioners have reported to parliamentary committees, but they’re not required to.The Commissioner is, therefore, unaccountable, which is an odd state of affairs given their twin roles of holding public authorities to account for FOI and virtually all organisations for their handling of personal data. Who watches the Watchmen, and all that.If a Commissioner was incompetent, thin-skinned, superficial, incapable of accepting criticism or changing course when their policies fail, or just out of their depth in a job they’re not suited to do, we’re stuck with them. There’s no easy avenue to remove them or force them to do better.A lot of people are concerned about changes in the DPDI bill that will water down the Commissioner’s independence, and I think those concerns might be justified. But the biggest problem with the two Commissioners we’ve had most recently – that they work on instinct and make stuff up as they go – would be addressed.With the board / chair / Chief Exec model, it would be harder for one person to make significant changes on a whim without any evidence to back up their decisions. It would be easier to hold them to account. It is possible that the government would exercise undue influence, but they can probably do this already.The DPDI bill is probably the only chance to change the way the Commissioner operates we’re likely to get; given how unsatisfactory the current model has proven to be, I’m in favour of changing it. Letting one person effectively control policy on such a significant area isn’t in the public interest.If you’d like to see the relevant provisions, they’re in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

22

2 Comments

Specialistshttps://lnkd.in/ew2_wNQTSo what does a democracy do when it indicates a broad course of action in particular parts of law that deal with the environment, labor conditions in the workplace, the safety of our food products and the medications we take? Lawmakers spell out their intent and then leave the details to the specialists in the executive branch agencies that are in charge of implementation. So what happens when those in charge of implementation--the specialists--make decisions that large employers and manufacturers do not like? Well, traditionally, there are multiple options available including court challenges and seeking corrections through the budget authorization process of Congress where specialists and politicians fight it out.But the US Supreme Court has short-cut all this and given big businesses a win this week in its "Chevron Ruling" over specialists that is literally earth shaking. This one ruling has the potential of gutting any and all environmental, healthcare, agriculture, and safety regulations created by specialists and given that power to lobbyists representing big business. Feel safer now? Neither do I.

1

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a notable decision, has overturned the Chevron deference by a 6-3 vote, limiting federal agencies' power to interpret ambiguous regulations. This change requires courts to assess the reasonableness of agency interpretations. While the Chevron framework allowed agencies flexibility in advancing regulatory priorities, this shift provides clarity for all healthcare providers navigating complex rules and regulations.On the positive side, granting courts the authority to interpret statutory ambiguities ensures a fair landscape for healthcare providers. However, the downside reveals that federal agencies previously utilized the Chevron framework to alter regulations annually, a process significantly quicker than Congress passing a bill, which can take up to four years.The hope now is for Congress to address the ambiguities in our laws, streamlining processes and enhancing regulatory clarity for all stakeholders. #federalregulation #healthcare

1

The Evidence Act turns 5️⃣ in January 2024!Signed into law in January 2019, the bipartisan Foundations for the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (the “Evidence Act”) created a new paradigm for the Federal Government to rethink how it builds and uses evidence to support decision making. It required Federal agencies to: 🔍 Strategically plan evidence building activities, and post those plan publicly.🔍 Identify the priority questions where evidence is needed to deliver on mission and improve operations.🔍 Designate senior officials to oversee implementation of the Act: Evaluation Officers, Chief Data Officers, and Statistical Officials. 🔍 Collaborate and coordinate across evidence-building functions.🔍 Elevate program evaluation as a key agency function.As we approach the 5th anniversary, we’ll be sharing more about Evidence Act implementation and the impact the Act is driving evidence building and use around the Federal Government!Federal Chief Data Officers Council, Office of Management and Budget #EvidenceAct #EvidenceActTurns5

56

1 Comment

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 40-year-old Chevron deference standard, meaning courts will no longer have to rely on agency expertise to review challenged regulations. The 6-3 decision marks a significant shift in administrative law and could profoundly affect healthcare stakeholders over time. https://bit.ly/3zvHVUZ HealthLeaders #healthcare #HealthPlans

7