ANÁLISE DA TUTELA DE URGÊNCIA PARA FORNECIMENTO DE MEDICAMENTOS NÃO RECOMENDADOS PELA CONITEC EM DOENÇAS ULTRARRARAS: RELATO DE CASO DE FORNECIMENTO DO ICATIBANTO PARA TRATAMENTO DE ANGIOEDEMA HEREDITÁRIO

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The judicialization of healthcare in Brazil over the past decade has had a significant impact on the economic and financial balance of the Unified Health System (SUS), with the potential to jeopardize the application of its principles and guidelines, such as universality, comprehensiveness, equity, and equality. The judiciary system has intervened by creating tools such as State Health Committees, NatJus, specialized health courts, and jurisprudential themes by higher courts with the aim of technically qualifying judicial decisions in healthcare. This includes considering Evidence-Based Medicine to ensure that the delivery of healthcare technology demanded by patients through judicial means is accurately assessed for its accuracy, effectiveness, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit, thereby ensuring the integrity of the constitutional framework designed to sustainably guarantee the Right to Health. o this end, we will analyze a case report in which the supply of icatibant for the treatment of hereditary angioedema was judicially determined, a medication not incorporated into the PCDT due to Conitec's non-recommendation.