JUDICIALIZATION OF HEALTHCARE IN TOCANTINS: ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT'S CRITERIA FOR THE PROVISION OF MEDICINES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE BRAZILIAN UNIFIED HEALTH SYSTEM (SUS)

Abstract

The right to health, although constitutionally guaranteed, still faces difficulties in its implementation, which contributes to the growth of judicialization as a means of accessing treatments and medications not provided by the State. In this context, this research aims to analyze the judicialization of the right to health in the State of Tocantins, focusing on the provision of medications not incorporated into the Unified Health System (SUS), in light of the criteria established by the Supreme Federal Court. It is justified by the need to understand the impacts of applying these parameters in judicial practice, especially given the limitations faced by users of the public system. The research problem is: does the application of the criteria established by the STF contribute to the standardization of decisions or does it constitute an obstacle to access to health? To answer this question, an empirical, applied research study with a mixed-methods approach was conducted, analyzing forty decisions of the Court of Justice of Tocantins, issued between 2024 and 2026. The results indicate a predominance of denied requests, mainly due to insufficient substantiated medical reports and the absence of robust scientific evidence. It is concluded that, although the criteria promote greater legal certainty and uniformity in decisions, their application may hinder access to the right to health, especially for individuals in vulnerable situations.