Doenças raras no Congresso Nacional brasileiro: análise da atuação parlamentar

• Autor(a) principal: Dhiogo Bayma Nespolo Pascarelli
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Éverton Luís Pereira
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
• Texto Completo: https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/8059
• topic: Doenças Raras; Medicamentos Órfãos; Poder Legislativo; Participação dos Interessados; Política Pública

Public policies that serve the Brazilian population with rare diseases are increasingly discussed, either regarding access to medicines, multidisciplinary care, therapeutic alternatives, or representativeness. Although the Brazilian Ministry of Health published in 2014 the Ordinance n. 199, which instituted the Brazilian National Policy of Integral Care for People with Rare Diseases and approving the Guidelines for Integral Care to People with Rare Diseases under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), this population remains unaided regarding the peculiarities of their treatments. In this scenario, patient associations began to seek spaces for political representation, increasingly provoking legislative initiatives in the Brazilian National Congress, seeking for alternatives for the millions of Brazilians living with rare diseases. By using a qualitative documentary research, the study considers all projects presented until August 2020 on this topic, identifying the main parliamentarians involved, their biographical characteristics, and at which stage of the public policy cycle this topic is in the Brazilian National Congress; thus, identifying a possible path for the consolidation of a policy. We observed that the actions regarding rare diseases are independent of any political party alignment, being an agenda shared by antagonistic groups. This agenda, however, faces the challenge of having only 18 parliamentarians responsible for 50% of all the legislative matters already presented. Furthermore, we also observed that parliamentarians prefer to boost the debate and give visibility to the subject than to invest in new attempts at legal and regulatory changes.