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 2009, the Supreme Court (STF) convened a Public Hearing to discuss the judi-cialization in health, in which 51 speeches were heard. Using a descriptive-analytical method, we aimed to systematize the speaker’s arguments; to identify potential actions to overcome the problem; and to analyze what have been done since then. Public policies have failed in applying SUS principles in some individual levels and the judicialization should be seen as an exceptional instrument, not the rule of the system. The principal proposals adopted were: the use of scientific evidence in decision making (Executive and Judiciary) and the sustainability of health funding. In both cases there have been significant advances. KEYWORDS: Health policy; Judicialization; Right to health; Judicial power; Unified Health System. 1 Graduanda em Saude Coletiva pela Universidade de Brasilia (UnB) - Brasilia (DF), Brasil. dalilafg@gmail.com 2 Graduanda em Farmacia pela Universidade de Brasilia (UnB) - Brasilia (DF), Brasil.

Judicialization of health and public hearing convened by the Supreme Court in 2009: what has changed since then?