Should compulsory admission to hospital be part of suicide prevention strategies?

The World Health Organization report Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative provides governments with guidance for comprehensive suicide prevention strategies. However, it does not mention the role that compulsory admission to hospital of psychiatric patients should have in policies for suicide prevention. This was a missed opportunity for international discussion and guidance about a measure that, although widely used, is becoming increasingly controversial in light of the existing evidence and human rights norms.

Os impactos da judicialização da saúde no município de São Paulo: gasto público e organização federativa / Los impactos de la judicialización de la salud en el municipio de São Paulo: gasto público y organización federativa / The impacts of health care judicialization in the city of Sao Paulo: public expenditure and federal organization

Nos últimos anos constata-se no Brasil um aumento do número de decisões judiciais obrigando o poder público a fornecer medicamentos, insumos, equipamentos e cirurgias. Os juízes tendem a desconsiderar o impacto orçamentário de suas decisões e entendem que todos os entes da federação podem ser igualmente responsabilizados pelo fornecimento de qualquer item pedido pelo paciente. O presente estudo analisa o impacto dessas decisões para a gestão orçamentária da política de saúde no município de São Paulo por meio de uma estimativa de gastos com a judicialização para o ano de 2011 a partir dos dados disponibilizados pelo município e as publicações no Diário Oficial concernentes à compra de medicamentos e insumos sem licitação pela Secretaria Municipal de Saúde. De acordo com as estimativas do presente trabalho, o gasto do município com judicialização da saúde em 2011 é o equivalente a 6% do que o município gastou com sua política de assistência farmacêutica e 10% do total gasto com fornecimento de medicamentos e material hospitalar, ambulatorial e odontológico. Além do mais, cerca de 55% desse gasto são destinados ao fornecimento de medicamentos de responsabilidade de estados ou União, e por volta de 45% para tratamentos não contemplados pelo Sistema Único de Saúde.

En los últimos años puede ser visto en Brasil un incremento en el número de decisiones judiciales obligando al Gobierno a proporcionar medicamentos, productos y procedimientos de salud. Los jueces normalmente ignoran el impacto presupuestario de sus decisiones y entienden que toda entidade federativa puede ser responsable para suministrar cualquier tratamiento solicitado por el paciente. Este estudio analiza el impacto de estas decisiones para la gestión del presupuesto de la política de salud en la Municipalidad de São Paulo. El gasto presupuestario fue calculado con información proveída por la Municipalidad de São Paulo y disponible en el Diario Oficial. Según las estimaciones del presente trabajo, el gasto del municipio con la judicialización de la salud en 2011 es equivalente a 6% del presupuesto de su política de asistencia farmacéutica y 10% del total gastado en el suministro de medicamentos y material hospitalar. Además, alrededor de 55% de este gasto es para el suministro de medicamentos de la responsabilidad de los Estados o del Gobierno Federal y 45% para los tratamientos que no pertenecen a la política pública de salud.

During the last years, the number of judicial decision ordering the provision of health treatments, equipment and surgeries by the public health system has increased. Judges tend to ignore their decisions’ budgetary impact and to consider that the Federal Government entities can be considered equally responsible by the supply of any item ordered by the patient. This paper analyzes the impact of these judicial decisions for the budgetary management of health policy in the City of Sao Paulo. It was considered an estimate with the expenses on the judicialization for the year of 2011, taking into consideration the data made available by the city and the publications in the official gazette about the acquisition of medications without bidding by the Municipal Health Department. According to the estimate of this article, the expenses of the city with health judicialization in 2011 is equivalent to 6% of the amount that the city spent with its policy of pharmaceutical assistance, and 10% of the total amount spent with the supply of medications, and hospital, dental and outpatient care material. Moreover, around 55% of the total amount is spent with drugs supply which are responsibility from the states and the union, and around 45% is spent with treatments that are not included in the Unified Public System (known as SUS).

Pharmaceutical companies vs. the State: who is responsible for post-trial provision of drugs in Brazil?

This paper discusses the post-trial access to drugs for patients who participated in clinical trials in Brazil. The ethical guidance for clinical trials in Brazil is arguably one of the clearest in the world in attributing to research sponsors the responsibility for providing post-trial drugs to patients who participated in their experiments. The Federal Constitution recognizes health as a fundamental right to be fulfilled by the State. Based on the Brazilian constitution and on the National Health Council resolutions, courts have been accepting patients' claims and ordering the State and the pharmaceutical companies to provide these patients with the tested treatment in the quantity and duration they need it. This generous interpretation of the duties of the pharmaceutical companies and the State makes the Brazilian model for post-trial access unique when compared to the experience of other countries and thus should be followed with attention by future research in order to assess its consequences for patients, research sponsors, and the public health system.