Partindo-se de uma análise das ações judiciais individuais para o fornecimento de medicamentos propostas por usuários do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) contra o Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, no ano de 2005, este estudo tem como objetivo discutir a atuação e o comportamento do Poder Judiciário no julgamento dos referidos processos judiciais. O estudo corresponde a uma pesquisa documental exploratória, de caráter quali-quantitativo, na qual foram analisados alguns aspectos relacionados às ações judiciais, tais como, o tipo de medicamento pleiteado, o teor das decisões proferidas e os fundamentos mais freqüentes utilizados pelos magistrados no julgamento das ações. Com base no resultado da análise das ações, do conceito de judicialização e da padronização oficial em matéria de medicamentos, concluiu-se que, ao decidir sobre o fornecimento de medicamentos, o Poder Judiciário concede os pedidos formulados sem considerar a padronização de medicamentos adotada pelo Ministério da Saúde, exercendo assim uma excessiva intervenção na política de saúde.
Considering the increase of the number of lawsuits to the supply of medicines at the range of the Brazilian National Public Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde-SUS), this article has the objective of discussing the Judiciary Power performance in the judicial conflicts concerning the right to health, especially regarding its characteristics and limits. This work also aims at contributing to the debate over the intervention of the Judiciary Power on public policies, especially concerning those pertaining to health, a phenomenon called judicialization. In this direction, this paper analyzes the characteristics and limits of judicial performance in those cases and it intends to establish criteria to the overcoming of these limits on judgments concerning the supply of medicines by the state for the SUS users.
All the contents of this chapter, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Todo o conteúdo deste capítulo, exceto quando houver ressalva, é publicado sob a licença Creative Commons Atribuição-Uso Não Comercial-Partilha nos Mesmos Termos 3.0 Não adaptada. Todo el contenido de este capítulo, excepto donde se indique lo contrario, está bajo licencia de la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported. Mix público-privado no sistema de saúde brasileiro realidade e futuro do SUS
Departing from theories of distributive justice and their relation with the distribution of health care within society, especially egalitarianism and libertarianism, this paper aims at demonstrating that the approach taken by the European Court of Justice regarding the application of the Internal Market principles (or the market freedoms) to the field of health care services has introduced new values which are more concerned with a libertarian view of health care. Moreover, the paper also addresses the question of how these new values introduced by the Court may affect common principles of European health systems, such as equity and accessibility.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the levels of access to healthcare available to undocumented migrants in the Italian and British health systems through a comparative analysis of health policies for this population in these two national health systems.
Design/methodology/approach
It builds on textual and legal analysis to explore the different meanings that the principle of universal access to healthcare might have according to literature and legal documents in the field, especially those from the human rights domain. Then, the concept of universal access, in theory, is contrasted with actual health policies in each of the selected countries to establish its meaning in practice and according to the social context. The analysis relies on policy papers, data on health expenditure, legal statutes and administrative regulations and is informed by one research question: What background conditions better explain more universal and comprehensive health systems for undocumented migrants?
Findings
By answering this research question the paper concludes that the Italian health system is more comprehensive than the British health system insofar it guarantees access free of charge to different levels of care, including primary, emergency, preventive and maternity care, while the rule in the British health system is the recovering of charges for the provision of services, with few exceptions. One possible legal explanation for the differences in access between Italy and UK is the fact that the right to health is not recognised as a fundamental constitutional right in the latter as it is in the former.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to ongoing debates on Universal Health Coverage and migration, and dialogues with recent discussions on social justice and welfare state typologies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.