In July 2026, Ercilia Sanhueza, a retired teacher from the Biobío region of Chile, became the focus of a legal battle over access to life-saving medication. Diagnosed with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in 2023, she had exhausted all public healthcare options, which offered only palliative care. The treatment she needed, a high-cost drug called Trastuzumab Deruxtecán, was not covered under Chile’s public health system. Her family funded the treatment using savings and a crowdfunding campaign titled “Ercilia wants to live.” Despite this effort, the hospital’s oncology committee acknowledged the drug’s effectiveness but noted the lack of financial resources to provide it. This led to a legal challenge against the hospital, the Regional Health Service of Concepción, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Finance. The case reached the Supreme Court, where the Third Chamber ruled in Ercilia’s favor on July 21, 2026. The court ordered the state to finance the treatment, despite the fact that such decisions are typically reserved for administrative authorities. The ruling emphasized the right to life and health, stating that these should not depend on one’s financial means. In an interview with Canal 9 Bío-Bío Televisión, Ercilia stressed that “health should not depend on money,” urging other women in similar situations to seek assistance and continue fighting for their rights. However, the decision was limited to her individual case and did not set a precedent for others. This ruling adds to a growing list of cases where Chile’s Supreme Court has intervened in healthcare disputes, often citing the right to life and health. Such interventions have sparked controversy, as critics argue that the judiciary should not override administrative bodies responsible for resource allocation. The debate centers on whether the provision of expensive treatments falls within the purview of the courts or remains the domain of health ministries and fiscal authorities. Chile’s public health system operates under three key regulatory frameworks: the Book II of Decree Law No. 1 of 2005 from the Ministry of Health, the System of Explicit Guarantees in Health (GES), established by Law No. 19,966 of 2004, and the Financial Protection System for High-Cost Diagnoses and Treatments, governed by Law No. 20,850 of 2015, known as the Ricarte Soto Law. These laws define which treatments are eligible for state funding. If a diagnosis or treatment is not included in these guarantees, neither hospitals nor regional health services are obligated to cover it. In Ercilia’s case, the treatment had not passed through the required approval process, meaning there was no legal obligation for the state to fund it. Critics argue that the current system creates barriers for patients who require costly medications, particularly those with rare or advanced conditions. They point to the need for reform to ensure equitable access to essential treatments. Meanwhile, supporters of the existing framework emphasize the importance of fiscal responsibility and the limitations imposed by resource scarcity. The tension between these perspectives highlights the broader challenges facing Chile’s healthcare policy. As the discussion around judicial intervention in healthcare continues, the outcome of Ercilia’s case may influence future debates. While her personal struggle has brought attention to systemic gaps, the legal boundaries remain unclear. For now, the ruling stands as a singular example of how the judiciary can step into a role traditionally held by administrative bodies, raising questions about the long-term implications for healthcare governance in Chile.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
CL
