A JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DA ASSISTÊNCIA FARMACÊUTICA NA ÁREA DA OFTALMOLOGIA NO ESTADO DA PARAÍBA DE 2015 A 2018

Abstract

The dimension and relevance that the judicialization of health has assumed in recent years can be visualized through the evolution of its financial impacts and the political, institutional and technical initiatives developed nationally and regionally to manage its evolution. Because it is a specialty with a great variety of diseases, demanding clinical and surgical treatments, Ophthalmology is one of the medical areas most prone to judicial requests in general. The objective of this study was to analyze the profile of the legal demands of the NAF of the SES/PB in the area of Ophthalmology. This is a descriptive, cross-sectional, observational documentary research. The population of the study consisted of the database of all legal claims of the NAF of SES/PB, during the 2015-2018 management, and the sample was formed by 854 claims in the area of Ophthalmology. The data were systematized in order to create indicators to characterize the judicialization of health care in Paraíba. It was observed that the period from 2017 to 2018 concentrated most of the judicial demands, totaling 565 requisitions, representing 66.15%. Coming mainly from the 1st and 2nd Macroregion (both with 20 municipalities and 763 judicializations in all), or 89.34%. The most common diagnosis was diabetic retinopathy (ICD 10 - H36), with 359 lawsuits, totaling 42.03%. The predominant pharmaceutical ingredient was Ranibizumab (Lucentis®) with 554 judicial requests, accounting for 64.87%. Taking into account only one judicialized drug, the monoclonal antibody Ranibizumab (Lucentis®), there was a budget impact for the SES/PB, over the four years of management, of an amount around R$2.523,868.24. Considering the entire chronology of the full annexation rite, it took a decade to finalize the process of inclusion of the drug in the RENAME list made available to users through the usual SUS mechanisms. Thus, this study evidenced that the analyzed phenomenon exemplifies a milder model of seizure of social goods, given that it encompasses the moderating role of the Judiciary and reveals a vile singularity of the financial connections in the health area. As well as, in the adaptive capacity of the very management that remained at the head of the state health management.