Judicialização no acesso a medicamentos: análise das demandas judiciais no Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil

• Autor(a) principal: Yonara Monique da Costa Oliveira
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Bárbara Suellen Fonseca Braga, Andrezza Duarte Farias, Cipriano Maia de Vasconcelos, Maria Angela Fernandes Ferreira
• 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/7584
• topic: Direito à Saúde; Judicialização da Saúde; Acesso a Medicamentos; Sistema Único de Saúde

This study aimed to analyze the lawsuits demanding access to medicines in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, from 2013 to 2017, describing their sociodemographic, legal, and medical/health characteristics. This was a descriptive study in which the unit of analysis was the individual judicial process for requesting medicines in which the state was the defendant. The data were obtained by consulting the website of the Rio Grande do Norte Court of Justice. A total of 987 suits were analyzed, in which the majority of the plaintiffs were females (58.8%), with a mean age of 48.3 years, and residing in the state’s interior (56.9%). The legal aid was predominantly public (52.8%), and 38.1% of the prescriptions originated in the private healthcare sector. Access to the medicines was obtained in 68% of the cases, and the plaintiff was responsible for the purchase in 56.1%, via attachment of public funds. Chronic noncommunicable diseases predominated, as did demands for medicines not supplied by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). A total of 1,517 medicines were requested, of which 936 (61.7%) were not on the National List of Essential Medicines (Rename). The most frequently demanded drug was insulin glargine (74 case). Of the 10 medicines with the most lawsuits, four were later incorporated by the SUS, featuring insulin analogues. The results showed that legal recourse has been consolidated as a form of access to medicines that have still not been incorporated by the SUS, which can contribute as a form of pressure for such incorporation. The attachment of public funds to comply with these rulings is worrisome for the administration of the SUS, since it jeopardizes the execution of regularly scheduled and budgeted policies in pharmaceutical assistance.