JULGADOS 1234 E 06 DO STF E SEUS CRITÉRIOS PARA CONCESSÃO DE MEDICAMENTOS NÃO INCORPORADOS AO SUS: UMA ANÁLISE CRÍTICA DAS BARREIRAS ENFRENTADAS PELAS PESSOAS HIPOSSUFICIENTES

Abstract

The study contextualizes the phenomenon of health judicialization in Brazil, emphasizing the growing number of lawsuits demanding medicines not incorporated into the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) and the relevance of the Supreme Federal Court’s (STF) decisions in Themes 1234 and 06. The research aims to critically analyze the criteria established by the STF for the judicial granting of such medicines and to investigate whether these parameters operate as barriers to access to justice and to the right to health for socioeconomically vulnerable individuals. A qualitative approach was adopted, based on documental analysis, literature review, and a targeted search on Google Scholar, from which only publications relevant to the research problem were selected. The study examines the evolution of health judicialization, the objective requirements defined by Themes 1234 and 06—such as ANVISA registration, robust scientific evidence, administrative denial, and jurisdictional delimitation—and the institutional roles of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, and NatJus. The findings indicate that although these criteria aim to promote legal certainty, standardize judicial decisions, and protect the financial sustainability of SUS, they impose a high evidentiary burden on claimants, disproportionately affecting vulnerable individuals who face socioeconomic, territorial, and digital barriers when seeking judicial remedies. It is concluded that the effectiveness of these rulings depends on strengthening institutions that provide legal assistance and adopting public policies capable of reducing inequalities, ensuring that the parameters established by the STF do not become obstacles to the realization of the fundamental right to health.