Judicialização da saúde e as divergências entre os Núcleos de Apoio Técnico do Judiciário (NatJus): uma análise empírica

Bruno da Cunha de Oliveira; Daniel Wei Liang Wang; Julio Trecenti; Beatriz Brajal Varejão

doi:10.1590/SciELOPreprints.18176

##article.authors##

Bruno da Cunha de Oliveira Insper - Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1943-0110
- Conceptualization
- Data Curation
- Formal Analysis
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project Administration
- Software
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – Original Draft Preparation
- Writing – Review & Editing
Daniel Wei Liang Wang Getúlio Vargas Foundation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-1315
- Conceptualization
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Supervision
- Writing – Original Draft Preparation
- Writing – Review & Editing
Julio Trecenti Insper - Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1680-6389
- Formal Analysis
- Methodology
- Software
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – Review & Editing
Beatriz Brajal Varejão University of São Paulo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2467-0677
- Formal Analysis
- Methodology
- Software
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – Review & Editing

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.18176

Keywords:

health litigation, NatJus, medicines, health technology assessment, National Council of Justice

Abstract

Brazil’s Judiciary Technical Support Centers (NatJus) are bodies whose function is to provide technical support to judges in cases involving court claims for health treatments. Their importance has recently grown with the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in General Repercussion Theme 6, on court claims for medicines not incorporated into the Unified Health System (SUS), and in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 7265, on court claims for treatments not included in the list of mandatory coverage of the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS). In both decisions, the STF made it mandatory for judges to consult the NatJus, whenever available in the respective jurisdiction, or other bodies or persons with technical expertise in health. Against this background, this study analyzed 273,734 technical notes on medicines registered on the e-NatJus platform and issued by a total of 25 different NatJus. The results point to large disparities in the recommendations of different NatJus, even when controlling for a range of characteristics of individual cases.