Supreme Court ruling could ease upcoming mental health parity law

A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling that curtails the power of federal agencies could soon have a big impact on employer mental health benefits.

Shawn Gremminger, CEO of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, speculated about the impact Wednesday during a webinar the coalition hosted to discuss the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, which overturned the Chevron doctrine.

Loper eliminated the need for federal courts to defer to interpretations of federal law by federal agencies.

Federal agencies are currently finalizing mental health parity and addiction treatment equity legislation that addresses “nonquantitative treatment limits,” such as rules that determine when patients can get coverage for inpatient care.

The Loper ruling could help employers suing under the final NQTL regulations because the requirements in the proposed regulations differ from those described in the statute, Gremminger said.

Parity: The federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Parity Act requires employers with more than 50 employees to ensure parity between mental health care and other types of health care.

Current regulations require plans to provide roughly the same level of care for people with mental health problems and other health problems.

Other effects: Christin Deacon, a health law and policy consultant, said she thinks other benefits issues, such as federal agencies’ overall authority to develop regulations under the No Surprises Act, could be less affected because the laws governing those issues are clearer.

But congressional bill writers may have a tougher job because they can no longer resolve conflicts by using vague language and counting on federal agencies to fix the problems with regulations, Deacon said.

“That strategy has now been completely disrupted,” Deacon said.

Deacon said courts have been weighing for years whether it makes sense to let a federal agency administer its own regulations without much judicial oversight.

“It’s not surprising that Chevron was targeted,” she said.

Future: Deacon predicted that some other precedents would cause federal courts to continue to accord some deference to federal agencies, but she also predicted that the Supreme Court would overturn other legal precedents that defined the scope of federal agencies’ authority.

One precedent that could disappear is Auer v. Robbins. The Supreme Court ruled in that 1999 case that federal courts should defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, as well as their interpretations of federal laws.

Another effect of ending the Chevron Doctrine could be more lawsuits, Deacon said.

Federal agencies could also avoid clashing with federal courts’ new views on regulation by being much more cautious in writing regulations. Agencies could focus instead on publishing answers to frequently asked questions and other kinds of informal “subregulatory guidance,” Deacon said.