Judicialization and jurisprudence: Suspension of advance relief on collegiate decisions in healthcare in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil

Abstract

After a public hearing in 2009, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court consolidated conclusions in the decision about the Suspension of Advance Relief 175/CE, establishing parameters that would guide the Judiciary and rationalize the judicialization of health in Brazil. Nevertheless, it’s still not known to what extent the jurisprudence has influenced juridical decisions. This work aims to investigate the usage of the suspension as a reference to give base to the final collegiate decisions on health of the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais. This is a case study based on secondary data found within collegiate judgments that cited the Suspension of Advance Relief 175/CE in their abstracts. 106 judgments were identified. The suspension was cited every year since 2009, especially in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The distribution of quotations among rapporteurs and courts was heterogeneous and the main context where the jurisprudence was used (90,6%) was to establish the need to prioritize treatments offered by the Brazilian National Health System and to prove cases that are an exception to this. It was estimated that the 106 judgments represented 0,1% of the universe of collective judgments about the right to health during the studied period. The conclusion was that the suspension was not a reference strongly used in collective judgments by the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais. Although the literature indicates a rational trend within the Brazilian jurisprudence when it comes to favorable decisions to judicial demands involving health issues, the scarce use of the suspension by the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais does not confirm this tendency and rises questions on its effectiveness in the interventions in cases of judicialization of health.