The interpretation of the General Repercussion of by the STF in the Precedents on Health Law

Abstract

Lawsuits involving access to public health services, as well as medicines and treatments, represent a significant proportion of the cases that today enter the Judiciary daily and that, later, through the appealing, will have access to the higher courts. These cases in general are characterized by their similarity, both in narrative of facts and in legal theses. The institute of general repercussion for the admissibility of extraordinary appeals to the Federal Supreme Court, introduced in the Brazilian Constitution in 2004, seeks to improve jurisdictional activity, determining that only those appeals that prove a general economic, social, legal or political repercussion will be admitted. Several issues related to access to health have now had their general repercussions already recognized. The objective of the research is to identify, in the decisions of recognition of general repercussion, which are the most frequent arguments capable to convince the STF to admit the appeals. The importance of this research is to provide a prospective reference for actions that relate to the right to health in the extraordinary stages of the proceedings. The methodology used was mixed, starting with a bibliographical review aimed at structuring a theoretical framework and then a qualitative empirical research on the basis of the admissibility decisions of general repercussion. The conclusions point to a preponderance attributed to the social and economic repercussions of decisions.