UNASSIGNED: The study is cross-sectional, analyzing 3753 national judgment documents from all State Courts of Brazil, available on their respective websites from 2014 to 2020. It compares regional legal decisions before and after the promulgation of Law Number 13.655/2018. Data tabulation, statistical analysis, textual analysis, coding, and counting of significant units in the collected documents were performed. The results of data cross-referencing are presented in tables and diagrams.
UNASSIGNED: The majority (96.86%) of legal claims (3635 cases) received partial or total provision of what was prescribed by the physician. The Judiciary predominantly handled these cases individually. The analysis indicates that the decisions made did not adhere to the norms established in 2018.
UNASSIGNED: Regional heterogeneity in health litigation was observed, and there was no significant variability in decisions during the studied period, even after the implementation of the new normative paradigm in 2018. Technical-scientific support was undervalued by the magistrates. Prioritizing litigants undermines equity in access to Universal Health Coverage for children and adolescents.
■这项研究是横断面的,分析来自巴西所有州法院的3753份国家判决文件,从2014年到2020年在各自的网站上提供。它比较了2018年第13.655号法律颁布前后的区域法律决定。数据制表,统计分析,文本分析,编码,并对收集的文件中的重要单位进行计数。数据交叉引用的结果显示在表格和图表中。
■大多数(96.86%)的法律索赔(3635例)接受了医生处方的部分或全部规定。司法机构主要单独处理这些案件。分析表明,做出的决定不符合2018年制定的规范。
■观察到卫生诉讼中的区域异质性,在研究期间,决策没有显著的可变性,即使在2018年新的规范范式实施之后。治安法官低估了技术-科学支持。优先考虑诉讼人损害了儿童和青少年在获得全民健康保险方面的公平性。