Aplicação do Sistema e-Natjus no controle da política pública de acesso à saúde pela Justiça Federal, na seção judiciária de Goiás, no período de junho de 2021 a junho de 2024

Abstract

This study aims to analyze how judicial decisions on health-related matters were reasoned in the Goiás Judicial Section of the Federal Court between 2021 and 2024. The research adopts an empirical approach with a qualitative-quantitative emphasis. The chosen methodological procedure was hypothetical-deductive, which is characterized by the formulation of preliminary hypotheses, followed by the application of tests aimed at evaluation and verification these hypotheses throughout the study. This work also seeks to provide an applied analysis aligned with the research problems raised and the necessity of refuting or corroborating the hypotheses, which is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Using both bibliographic and documentary research, the report includes the collection of data extracted from court records, which are analyzed to prepare a detailed representation of these data. In order to meet one of the specific objectives of the study, which involves examining the use of NATJUS as a public policy instrument related to the right to health, within the scope of the Judicial Section of Goiás of the Federal Court, the documentary research technique was chosen. The first stage of this procedure consisted of collecting and analyzing data from legal proceedings related to the topic in question, carried out directly in the legal proceedings through the Electronic Judicial Process (PJe) platform, on the TRF1 website itself. The study aims to analyze the extent of health-related cases and identify, based on the collected data, the impact and influence of NATJUS opinions on judicial decisions. Using filters for subjects related to the right to health, 1,313 (one thousand three hundred and thirteen) cases were initially found. After removing cases with duplicate subjects and those that had no affinity with the topic studied, the sample was limited to 551 cases, of which only 144 had an opinion from NATJUS. It was found that the decisions that include the opinion from NATJUS, in addition to using them as technical support, are also used as grounds for accepting or rejecting the request made in the Initial Complaint. It was concluded that, despite the small number of requests by judges for a technical opinion from NATJUS, this judicial public policy tool can be of great value to the Judiciary. The technical support offered by health professionals to the judges is something that contributed to the elaboration of a more technical, fair, and appropriate to the particularities of each case.