Law and economics e judicialização da saúde: as consequências práticas da decisão nas ações de medicamentos de alto custo
The costing of high-cost medicines, at the expense of public coffers, and their consequent judicialization when not included in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), is a controversial issue in the current Brazilian legal order. While the private individual tries to realize its fundamental right to heal...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | bachelorThesis |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/51723 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | The costing of high-cost medicines, at the expense of public coffers, and their consequent judicialization when not included in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), is a controversial issue in the current Brazilian legal order. While the private individual tries to realize its fundamental right to health, the state has raised the reserve of the possible and the scarcity of public resources. Due to the numerous lawsuits, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) recognized the general repercussion of the matter in themes 6, high cost drugs not included in the list of SUS, and 500, of finalized judgment, when the drugs are not registered with ANVISA. Aware that the judicialization of health stems from abstract legal values, the National Congress, through Law No. 13655 of 2018, amended the interpretative premises of Brazilian law, adding articles in the LINDB, with a view to consideration by the magistrate, the practical consequences of your decision. Thus, based on bibliographic and jurisprudential research, documentary, therefore, we seek to elucidate, in the light of parameters of the Economic Analysis of Law (EAL), whether the adoption of consequentialism by the legislature helped / can assist in judging themes 6 and 500. from the STF. In the end, we understand that EAL contributes to the identification of the most effective solutions in terms of practical effects, but is unable to provide the correct answer. That is, the limitation of subjectivism, either by setting precedents with general repercussions to pacify complex issues, or by adopting consequentialism, is not capable of inhibiting decision-making. It will be up to the magistrate, guided by the public interest and the burden of reasoning, to decide within the possibilities of application within the framework of law. |
|---|