English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In Latin America, ‘judicialization’ for access to healthcare refers to thousands of different claims, conditions, technologies and circumstances. Its impact depends on what is ‘judicialized’, why, for which benefit, and at what cost to society. Since judges cannot, by themselves, reduce medical uncertainty – or price tags – their health systems are exposed to costly adjudications based solely on interpretations of right to health, or life. The result is a low-governance, inefficient system for deciding coverage. We reviewed lists of judicialised medicines in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay, dividing them into types A, B and C. We propose a debate by type, and that judges, facing litigation type-C, consider mandating coverage conditional on results, as requisite for reimbursement.

Towards a taxonomy of judicialisation for access to medicines in Latin America