2019
DOI: 10.1590/s0104-12902019180642
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Resumo A Lei nº 12.401/2011 e o Decreto nº 7.508/2011 são celebrados, entre outros motivos, por introduzir regras inéditas para a política de assistência farmacêutica que teriam o potencial de racionalizar a judicialização da saúde no Brasil. Este estudo visa analisar qual seria o impacto da observância dos critérios de acesso universal à assistência farmacêutica integral, delimitados pelos marcos normativos, no cenário da judicialização de medicamentos em Minas Gerais de 1999 a 2009. Trata-se de um estudo ret… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Federal Law 12.401/2011 (Brasil, 2011a) established that the provision of medicines in SUS must follow the official medicines lists and Clinical Protocols and Therapeutic Guidelines. Thus, the litigation of non-incorporated medicines described here corroborates with previous investigations reporting that judicial decisions are not based on the current regulation of PS in the public health system (Lopes et al, 2014, Lopes et al, 2019, and most of the lawsuits could be avoided if the essential medicines lists were followed (Catanheide et al, 2016). In addition, our study revealed that medicines claimed in lawsuits were not considered essentials according to the WHO MLEM.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Federal Law 12.401/2011 (Brasil, 2011a) established that the provision of medicines in SUS must follow the official medicines lists and Clinical Protocols and Therapeutic Guidelines. Thus, the litigation of non-incorporated medicines described here corroborates with previous investigations reporting that judicial decisions are not based on the current regulation of PS in the public health system (Lopes et al, 2014, Lopes et al, 2019, and most of the lawsuits could be avoided if the essential medicines lists were followed (Catanheide et al, 2016). In addition, our study revealed that medicines claimed in lawsuits were not considered essentials according to the WHO MLEM.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The share of SUS spending on successful claims for drugs has grown exponentially over the last two decades and the impact of this expenditure on the health budget has drawn the attention of researchers. Lopes et al (2019) reported that federal spending on successful claims for drugs increased by 1,006% between 2008 and 2015. The Ministry of Health alone spent more than R$2.7 billion on medicines purchased in compliance with court orders between 2010 and 2015, with 54% of this amount being spent on just three high-cost medicines that are not registered in the country and a large share of total spending going to products that are not incorporated into the SUS (TCU, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Em Minas Gerais, dos 10.051 medicamentos entre os itens deferidos como produtos farmacêuticos em ações judiciais contra a SES/MG (outubro de 1999 a outubro de 2009), somente 773 (7,69%) foram classificados como adequados enquanto 6.919 (68,84%) como inadequados aos critérios de acesso à assistência farmacêutica instituídos em 2011 (17,18).…”
unclassified