KFF Health News' ‘What the Health?'
Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Term Wraps With a Bang'
Episode Number: 354
Released: July 3, 2024
[Editor'snote:[Editor'snote: This records was produced utilizing both transcription software application and a human's light touch. It has actually been modified for design and clearness.]
Mila Atmos: The future of America remains in your hands. This is not a motion picture trailer and it's not a political advertisement, however it is a call to action. I'm Mila Atmos and I'm enthusiastic about opening the power of daily people. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take concepts about civic life and democracy and turn them into action products for you and me. Every Thursday we speak with strong activists and civic innovators to assist you comprehend your power and your power to alter the status quo. Discover us @futurehindsight. com or any place you listen to podcasts.
Julie Rovner: Hello and invite back to “What the Health?” I'm Julie Rovner, chief Washington reporter for KFF Health News, and I'm signed up with by a few of the very best and most intelligent health press reporters in Washington. We're taping today on Tuesday, July 2, at 11 a.m. As constantly, news takes place quick and things may have altered by the time you hear this, so here we go.
If you're a routine listener, you'll bear in mind that the week of Memorial Day we did a roundup of the health policy-related Supreme Court cases whose choices we anticipated to come in June. Well, now it's the week of July Fourth, and we're going to follow up and speak about how those cases got fixed. We are happy to invite back to the podcast Sarah Somers, legal director of the National Health Law Program. Last winter season, Sarah assisted us comprehend what was at stake in maybe the most considerable health-related case of the term. Sarah, welcome back to “What the Health?”
Sarah Somers: Hello, Julie. Thank you a lot for having me.
Rovner: So let's discuss the huge kahuna initially, or should I state the huge herring? Inform us about the court's choice in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoTechnically, this was a case about herring fishing and who must spend for federal government observers on fishing boats. The reverberations from this will be felt all over the federal government?
Somers: Absolutely. This is yet another example of the sort of case that can slip up out of no place for those people who have an interest in health policy, due to the fact that it does not have anything to do with health policy or our normal topics. What this pertained to is a Department of Commerce policy that needed fishing boats to spend for observers to the degree to which they were fishing. Therefore this was something that generally would not worry us, however the celebrations presented a much wider concern, which is whether they must reverse a case called Chevron
