Reflections on the ambivalent nature of judicialization in health: Challenge to guarantee comprehensiveness and equity in the SUS

Abstract

In Brazil, the right to health became universal and comprehensive, as per the constitutional provision. However, the judicial route began to be used to guarantee access to health treatments in response to the population's needs, without the use of much technical rigor. Objective: to review the literature on the positive and negative points found in the Judicialization of health. Methodology: a survey was carried out in the Virtual Health Library Database, with studies between 2010 and 2021. 59 articles were found, applying the inclusion criteria for this study, we selected 39 for analysis. After in-depth reading of the articles, themes organized into the following categories were chosen: medicines and treatments standardized by the SUS; medicines and treatments not standardized by the SUS; and interference from pharmaceutical industries and interinstitutional dialogues. Results: Most articles identified positive and negative points of the Judicialization of health or mentioned the existence of the contradiction regarding this subject. The studies showed that part of the Judicialization results from failures in the management itself. Therefore, a conflict can be seen in the dichotomy between the right to health effectively guaranteed and the structure and capacity of the system to achieve it. Conclusion: The entities involved in the Judicialization of health must dialogue with each other, in order to understand the phenomenon and face the challenges. It is necessary to recognize legal demands as a provocative source for improving SUS management, always aiming to provide better service to users, thus promoting equity and efficiency in spending public money.

Submission: 03/28/24| Review: 08/30/24| Approval: 08/30/24