A judicialização do acesso a saúde: é dever do estado fornecer medicamentos de alto custo?
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2022-12
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Calegari, Ana Paula da Mata
Orientador
Freire Neto, Lourenço de Miranda
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
No trabalho proposto, analisa-se o problema da oferta de medicamentos de alto custo e a judicialização da saúde no Brasil, que é ocasionada pela inércia do Estado na garantia constitucional do direito à saúde. Dessa forma, busca-se analisar o fenômeno da judicialização como manifestação do acesso à proteção da saúde, principalmente para os portadores de doenças raras como a Atrofia Muscular Espinhal - AME, doença genética e degenerativa que leva gradativamente ao atrofiamento da musculatura, que possui uma possibilidade de cura milionária, que não consta na lista de medicamentos fornecidos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, a terapia gênica por Zolgensma (onasemnogen abeparvoveque). Para o desenvolvimento do presente trabalho utilizou-se como metodologia de pesquisa a revisão bibliográfica de abordagem qualitativa, cujo método foi ao analítico-normativo, com a análise de artigos científicos, notícias, doutrinas e jurisprudências; além de buscas no banco de dados da Justiça Federal de todas as regiões. A partir disso, abordou-se o princípio da igualdade de tratamento, onde a Constituição Federal de 1988 estabelece que todos terão um tratamento igualitário e isonômico quanto ao direito à saúde. Assim, questionou-se as decisões judiciais em ações individuais condenando o Estado a fornecer medicamentos de alto custo em detrimento aos demais cidadãos da população, discutindo a escassez de recursos para atender a essas demandas e o ativismo judicial. Ao final, entendeu-se que, considerando a previsão Constitucional do direito à saúde como um dever do Estado, que deve efetivá-lo através de políticas públicas, faz-se necessário pensar em ideias para solucionar o impasse, como a implementação do pagamento de impostos por toda a população para aumentar o orçamento disponível no SUS, a negociação direta com a farmacêutica para diminuição dos custos do medicamento e a moderação judicial.
In the proposed study, we analyze the problem of the supply of high-cost medicines and the judicialization of health in Brazil, which is caused by the inertia of the State in the constitutional guarantee of the right to health. In this way, we seek to analyze the phenomenon of judicialization as a manifestation of access to health protection, especially for patients with rare diseases such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy - SMA, a genetic and degenerative disease that gradually leads to atrophy of the musculature, which has a possibility of a millionaire cure, which is not on the list of drugs provided by the “Sistema Único de Saúde” - SUS, gene therapy by Zolgensma (onasemnogen abeparvoveque). For the development of the present work, the bibliographic review of a qualitative approach was used as a research methodology, whose method was analytical-normative, with the analysis of scientific articles, news, doctrines and jurisprudence; in addition to searches in the Federal Justice database of all regions. From this, the principle of equal treatment was approached, where the Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that everyone will have an equal and isonomic treatment regarding the right to health. Thus, judicial decisions in individual actions were questioned, condemning the State to provide high-cost medicines to the detriment of other citizens in the population, discussing the scarcity of resources to meet these demands and judicial activism. In the end, it was understood that, considering the Constitutional provision of the right to health as a duty of the State, which must implement it through public policies, it is necessary to think of ideas to solve the impasse, such as the implementation of payment of imposed by the entire population to increase the budget available in the SUS, direct negotiation with the pharmaceutical company to reduce drug costs and judicial moderation.
In the proposed study, we analyze the problem of the supply of high-cost medicines and the judicialization of health in Brazil, which is caused by the inertia of the State in the constitutional guarantee of the right to health. In this way, we seek to analyze the phenomenon of judicialization as a manifestation of access to health protection, especially for patients with rare diseases such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy - SMA, a genetic and degenerative disease that gradually leads to atrophy of the musculature, which has a possibility of a millionaire cure, which is not on the list of drugs provided by the “Sistema Único de Saúde” - SUS, gene therapy by Zolgensma (onasemnogen abeparvoveque). For the development of the present work, the bibliographic review of a qualitative approach was used as a research methodology, whose method was analytical-normative, with the analysis of scientific articles, news, doctrines and jurisprudence; in addition to searches in the Federal Justice database of all regions. From this, the principle of equal treatment was approached, where the Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that everyone will have an equal and isonomic treatment regarding the right to health. Thus, judicial decisions in individual actions were questioned, condemning the State to provide high-cost medicines to the detriment of other citizens in the population, discussing the scarcity of resources to meet these demands and judicial activism. In the end, it was understood that, considering the Constitutional provision of the right to health as a duty of the State, which must implement it through public policies, it is necessary to think of ideas to solve the impasse, such as the implementation of payment of imposed by the entire population to increase the budget available in the SUS, direct negotiation with the pharmaceutical company to reduce drug costs and judicial moderation.
Descrição
Indicado a Publicação
Palavras-chave
direito , saúde , ativismo , judicial law , health , judicial activism