ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The significant increase in access to oncological medicines through court cases suggests that constitutional guarantees of integral and universal care in the Brazilian public health system are uncertain. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted to analyze data from lawsuits requesting oncological medicines from 2014 to 2020 in the State of Goiás, Brazil, in state and federal courts. Sociodemographic, medical, and legal variables were statistically examined using descriptive, association, and correlation methods. RESULTS: Women brought more than half (54%) of the 301 processes analyzed. The most frequent age group was over 55 years, with income below 3 × the minimum wage (total about USD$600/month), and their cases were promoted through the public minister and public defender's offices. The most requested medications, not on official public health system lists, were indicated for multiple myeloma and brain cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improved quality of life, frequently used as a justification, could be conceptually confused with increased survival. Finally, judicialization itself indicates that individual health needs arise even with properly defined and adequately implemented public policies. These needs should be considered for the adequate provisioning of services by the state to ensure the right to health.
Subject(s)
Drugs, Essential , Health Policy , Brazil , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Middle Aged , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
Compliance with legal deadlines for the assessment and incorporation of technologies in Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) is essential to ensure public access to essential medicines. The scope of this paper was to analyze the compliance with legal deadlines for incorporation and availability of medicines in the SUS, comparing Oncology and the Specialized Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (SCPA). A comparison was made of the drugs incorporated that were submitted to Conitec in the period from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2020. A total of 85 drugs were recommended for incorporation by Conitec, of which 15 (17.64%) were for Oncology and 70 (82.36%) were for SCPA. The time between analysis and recommendation by Conitec until the publication of the decision by the Ministry of Health was, on average, 86 days longer for oncological drugs and the availability timeframe of technologies incorporated in the oncology area was, on average, 389 days longer than for SCPA. The major progress achieved with the creation of Conitec in Brazil is acknowledged, but the results of this study point to a pressing need to improve the process of making available technologies incorporated into the SUS, especially in oncology.
O cumprimento dos prazos legais para incorporação e disponibilização de tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é fundamental para o acesso da população aos medicamentos considerados essenciais. Objetivou-se analisar o cumprimento destes prazos comparando a Oncologia e o Componente Especializado de Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF). Comparou-se os processos de incorporação de medicamentos no SUS da Oncologia e do CEAF que foram submetidos à Conitec no período de 01 de janeiro de 2017 a 30 de abril de 2020. No período, 83 processos de incorporação de medicamentos foram recomendados para incorporação pela Conitec, dos quais 13 (15,66%) eram da Oncologia e 70 (84,34%) eram do CEAF. Verifica-se que o tempo de análise e recomendação pela Conitec até a publicação da decisão pelo Ministério da Saúde foi, em média, 15 dias maior para processos que continham medicamentos oncológicos e o tempo para disponibilização das tecnologias incorporadas da área da oncologia foi, em média, 389 dias maior que do CEAF. Reconhece-se o importante avanço obtido com a criação da Conitec no Brasil, porém os resultados deste estudo apontam para a necessidade de aprimoramento do processo de disponibilização de tecnologias incorporadas no SUS, em especial da Oncologia.
Subject(s)
Drugs, Essential , Pharmaceutical Services , Brazil , Government Programs , HumansABSTRACT
Resumo O cumprimento dos prazos legais para incorporação e disponibilização de tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é fundamental para o acesso da população aos medicamentos considerados essenciais. Objetivou-se analisar o cumprimento destes prazos comparando a Oncologia e o Componente Especializado de Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF). Comparou-se os processos de incorporação de medicamentos no SUS da Oncologia e do CEAF que foram submetidos à Conitec no período de 01 de janeiro de 2017 a 30 de abril de 2020. No período, 83 processos de incorporação de medicamentos foram recomendados para incorporação pela Conitec, dos quais 13 (15,66%) eram da Oncologia e 70 (84,34%) eram do CEAF. Verifica-se que o tempo de análise e recomendação pela Conitec até a publicação da decisão pelo Ministério da Saúde foi, em média, 15 dias maior para processos que continham medicamentos oncológicos e o tempo para disponibilização das tecnologias incorporadas da área da oncologia foi, em média, 389 dias maior que do CEAF. Reconhece-se o importante avanço obtido com a criação da Conitec no Brasil, porém os resultados deste estudo apontam para a necessidade de aprimoramento do processo de disponibilização de tecnologias incorporadas no SUS, em especial da Oncologia.
Abstract Compliance with legal deadlines for the assessment and incorporation of technologies in Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) is essential to ensure public access to essential medicines. The scope of this paper was to analyze the compliance with legal deadlines for incorporation and availability of medicines in the SUS, comparing Oncology and the Specialized Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (SCPA). A comparison was made of the drugs incorporated that were submitted to Conitec in the period from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2020. A total of 85 drugs were recommended for incorporation by Conitec, of which 15 (17.64%) were for Oncology and 70 (82.36%) were for SCPA. The time between analysis and recommendation by Conitec until the publication of the decision by the Ministry of Health was, on average, 86 days longer for oncological drugs and the availability timeframe of technologies incorporated in the oncology area was, on average, 389 days longer than for SCPA. The major progress achieved with the creation of Conitec in Brazil is acknowledged, but the results of this study point to a pressing need to improve the process of making available technologies incorporated into the SUS, especially in oncology.
