ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Impact evaluation of technical notes issued by NATJUS on healthcare judicialization.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTechnical Support Centers of the Judiciary (NATJUST), provide health technology assessments to judges in health-related litigations against both public and private healthcare systems. These centers provide technical notes, that can assist Brazilian Courts in making provisional rulings and determining patient access to health services during legal proceedings.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of NATJUS technical notes on preliminary injunctions in lawsuits against the Brazilian Unified Health System. Specifically, we analyzed the alignment between judicial decisions and technical notes recommendations, assessed lawsuit costs, and examined NATJUS-generated savings for Brazilian Unified Health System. Furthermore, we examined the technical notes issued by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, which manages the national NATJUS.
methodsWe constructed a database of lawsuits with and without NATJUS technical notes. Using random forest models, we predicted the potential outcomes of preliminary injunctions where technical notes were available. Savings were estimated by examining the relationship between preliminary injunctions and case values, then compared with potential injunctions incorporating technical notes recommendations.
resultsThe technical notes recommendations and judges' decisions were aligned in 76% of the cases, with median savings from lawsuits amounting to BRL10,120. The estimated impact of NATJUS technical notes for Brazilian Unified Health System indicated median savings of BRL1,312.74 per case per year. Between 2020 and 2022, NATJUS resulted in total savings of BRL111.4 million. Focusing on Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein NATJUS, the cost savings for Brazilian Unified Health System amounted to BRL27 million, which indicates a return on investment of BRL1.66 per BRL1 invested in the project.
conclusionOur findings indicate the economic importance of technical notes in shaping preliminary injunctions, not only elevating decision quality but also fostering evidence-based judicial processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.