Deliberation on specialized courts as mitigation to judicialization in the health sector

Abstract

The study questioned the reasons why specialized health courts were not yet pervasive in the country, given the studies that consider it can provide judicial services in a more agile way and with better quality than the current practice. With this objective in mind, initially, the work reviewed studies of institutional logics that seek to understand the discourse and actions of groups of actors favorable to changes in certain contexts, without being able to achieve this purpose. The research sought evidence regarding the possibility of introducing specialized health courts and the regulation of their governance, which consisted of interviews with professionals who characterize some of the most important actors in the field, in addition to a documentary survey on the subject. The research confirmed, with little nuance on the part of the interviewees, that the specialized health court is confirmed as a more agile model that can provide better legal results. However, among the impeding factors for its implementation are the differences between the actors on how the composition and exercise of medical advice will take place at these courts, which reflect the conflicts still in progress between the logics prioritized by the actors with greater decision-making power.