PP152 Options To Approach Health Litigation In Brazil: A Policy Brief

Introduction:In Brazil, health is a constitutional right and the government is responsible for its guarantee. The Brazilian health system is characterized by universality, equality, and integrality, but citizens still strive to guarantee their rights through litigation. This work aimed to develop an evidence brief to support the decision-making process of judges with respect to health technologies, based on scientific evidence.Methods:Support tools from the Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) were used to develop the evidence brief. After defining and describing the problem, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, The Campbell Library, The Cochrane Library, Rx for Change, and PDQ-Evidence for systematic reviews published from 2010 to 2016. Nine systematic reviews were found. Review selection and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers. Three strategies for addressing the health litigation were defined. Evidence was summarized on benefits, harms, resource use, cost-effectiveness, uncertainties, and implementation. Implementation barriers and facilitators were also described.Results:Three strategies were found: (i) Rapid response services to support evidence-informed decision making in health technology decisions—educational activities and materials were described as an effective way to involve different stakeholders and inform decision making, even when financial reallocation is needed; (ii) Continuing education programs focused on developing health technology assessment knowledge among law workers—continued education and educational outreach may be effective in knowledge and ability acquisition and retention, changing professional practices. Eventual lack of interest from or availability of the professionals can be addressed by involving leaders and opinion makers, as well as offering multimedia educational materials and activities adapted for the public; and (iii) Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) focused on the litigation of health technologies—the use of RJC through face-to-face meetings or social councils involves citizens in the decision-making process, including resource management. There are multiple barriers to this option (e.g. a lack of understanding among the public, conflicts of interest, a lack of professionals capable of conducting RJCs, and the need for legal reformulation) because of its unprecedented use in the healthcare setting. Opinion leaders should be invited to facilitate communication and the decision-making process among citizens, government, and the law.Conclusions:This evidence brief will be debated among interested parties and presented to the health minister and state secretaries in order to implement the strategy options, once regional specificities are taken into account.