Administrative consensus as a tool for good governance: strategies to mitigate the judicialization of public health in Brazil

The judicialization of public health in Brazil has grown exponentially in recent decades, posing significant challenges to administrative governance and the efficient allocation of public resources. This study investigates the impact of this phenomenon on the formulation and implementation of health policies, analyzing the effects of judicial intervention on the management of the Unified Health System (SUS). As an alternative to excessive litigation, administrative consensus emerges as a viable approach to conflict resolution, promoting greater adherence to SUS guidelines and reducing the burden on the Judiciary. Through a literature review and document analysis, this study examines successful experiences of mediation and negotiation in the public sector, such as the Health Dispute Resolution Chambers (CRLS) and the Interinstitutional Committees for the Resolution of Health Claims (CIRADS). The research concludes that the institutionalization of consensual mechanisms can strengthen public governance, ensuring greater predictability, efficiency, and equity in the provision of health services.