Judicialização do direito à saúde: os impactos na saúde suplementar e as soluções construídas pelo CNJ

Abstract

The judicialization of the right to health in Brazil is a growing phenomenon, driven by citizens’ search for guarantees of access to treatments and medicines through the Judiciary. This practice arises from the State’s inefficiency in ensuring the universality and comprehensiveness of health services, as provided in the 1988 Federal Constitution. Judicialization impacts both the Unified Health System (SUS) and supplementary health, generating financial and administrative challenges for the State and health plan operators. In the SUS, judicial intervention disrupts the public budget, compromising the allocation of resources to health policies with greater social reach, such as preventive programs. In the private sector, lawsuits for high-cost treatments not provided for in the contracts increase the operating costs of operators, increasing the cost of health plans and restrict the population’s access to supplementary health services. The general objective of this paper is to analyze the growing judicialization of the right to health in Brazil, its impacts on supplementary health, and the solutions developed by the CNJ to minimize the negative effects of this phenomenon. In this context, the specific objectives are to study the historical evolution of the right to health in Brazil; to investigate the phenomenon of the judicialization of health in Brazil; and to analyze the impacts of the judicialization of supplementary health and the solutions developed by the CNJ. In addition to the financial effects, judicialization generates inequalities in access to health, favoring individuals with greater purchasing power and access to the Judiciary. The work was based on a documentary approach. In conclusion, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) has implemented initiatives to minimize these impacts, such as the creation of committees and the promotion of mediation and conciliation practices. However, these efforts have not yet been sufficient to contain the increase in legal demands.