Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 23:54:34 GMT -5
The competence to legislate on civil law and insurance policy is exclusive to the Union. Based on this premise, the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of state law 11.746/2020, of Paraíba, which, due to a waiting period for signed contracts prohibit health plan operators from refusing service to users suspected of or diagnosed with Covid-19.
reproduction
reproduction
By majority vote, the collegiate, in the virtual session concluded on 11/6, upheld ADI 6,493, filed by the National Union of Health Self-Management Institutions (Unidas), representing health plan operators in the country.
In his vote, the rapporteur, minister Gilmar Portugal Mobile Number List Mendes, highlighted that the Federal Constitution, in order to regulate the issue at a national level, granted the Union the exclusive competence to legislate on civil law and insurance policy (items I and VII of article 22). In this sense, the questioned law, by imposing obligations on health plan operators in Paraíba, directly interferes in the contractual relationships between operators and users, with a relevant financial impact, and compromises the effectiveness of the service provided by the operators, "who see themselves as obliged to substantially change their operations solely in that state".
The rapporteur noted that the setting of a waiting period by health plan operators has already been regulated by federal law 9,656/1998, and it is not up to the federated entity to innovate matters that have already been regulated. Finally, he considered that the crisis caused by the epidemic poses challenges to the Union and the states, but that solutions must respect the division of competences set out in the Federal Constitution.
The rapporteur was followed by minister Cármen Lúcia and ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli, Ricardo Lewandowski, Luiz Fux (president), Nunes Marques and Luís Roberto Barroso.
Competing jurisdiction
Ministers Edson Fachin and Marco Aurélio and Minister Rosa Weber were defeated, who argued that the action should be dismissed. First to differ, Fachin understands that the hypothesis is recognition of the concurrent competence of the states and the Federal District to legislate on consumer relations. For him, there is no federal rule that excludes the co-participation of the federated entity in delving deeper into the issue in relation to the need for certain services. Furthermore, state law can be interpreted as an authentic exercise of common and concurrent powers to adopt administrative and legislative measures relating to health. With information from the press office of the Federal Supreme Court.