RESUMEN
The constitutional right to health in Brazil has entitled patients to litigate against the government-funded national health system (SUS), claiming access to various health treatments including those excluded from the health system's benefits package. Courts have tended to rely on a single medical prescription to judge these cases in favor of individual patients and against the health system. The large volume of cases has had a substantial financial impact on the government's health budget and has created unfairness in accessing healthcare. To change courts' behavior, a new health technology assessment (HTA) body - CONITEC - was created in 2011. Its creation was accompanied by an administrative procedure that made decisions about the health system's benefits package more transparent, accountable, participative and evidence-informed. It was expected that this HTA system would bring more legitimacy to the government's priority-setting decisions and promote deference from the courts. This study tests whether Brazil's new HTA system succeeded in encouraging judicial deference by analyzing a stratified random sample of 13,263 court decisions for whether the existence of a CONITEC report resulted in less frequent court orders to provide treatment for individual litigants. The results show that the creation of CONITEC did not change courts' behavior; courts still decide in favor of patients in most cases. Indeed, even when there was a CONITEC report recommending against government funding for a particular healthcare treatment, the vast majority of the relatively few patients who were unsuccessful in obtaining a health benefit at their first court hearing later obtained a favorable decision after appealing to a higher court. This finding was confirmed through an interrupted time-series analysis that did not find an impact of having a CONITEC report on courts' willingness to override a government priority-setting decision. In fact, CONITEC was rarely cited in court decisions, even when litigants mentioned the existence of a CONITEC report.
Asunto(s)
Derecho a la Salud , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Brasil , Atención a la Salud , Instituciones de Salud , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To differentiate exposure to the newly introduced chikungunya virus from exposure to endemic dengue virus and other pathogens in Haiti. METHODS: We used a multiplex bead assay to detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to a recombinant chikungunya virus antigen, two dengue virus-like particles and three recombinant Plasmodium falciparum antigens. Most (217) of the blood samples investigated were collected longitudinally, from each of 61 children, between 2011 and 2014 but another 127 were collected from a cross-sectional sample of children in 2014. FINDINGS: Of the samples from the longitudinal cohort, none of the 153 collected between 2011 and 2013 but 78.7% (48/61) of those collected in 2014 were positive for IgG responses to the chikungunya virus antigen. In the cross-sectional sample, such responses were detected in 96 (75.6%) of the children and occurred at similar prevalence across all age groups. In the same sample, responses to malarial antigen were only detected in eight children (6.3%) but the prevalence of IgG responses to dengue virus antigens was 60.6% (77/127) overall and increased steadily with age. Spatial analysis indicated that the prevalence of IgG responses to the chikungunya virus and one of the dengue virus-like particles decreased as the sampling site moved away from the city of Léogâne and towards the ocean. CONCLUSION: Serological evidence indicates that there had been a rapid and intense dissemination of chikungunya virus in Haiti. The multiplex bead assay appears to be an appropriate serological platform to monitor the seroprevalence of multiple pathogens simultaneously.