This research examines the relationship between the right to health, the digital transition of the Italian National Health Service, and the public knowledge of health needs through data, predictive models and algorithms. The digital transition is understood as a process of change affecting the forms through which health needs are met. Methodologically, the thesis proceeds from the premise that such a transition can be properly understood only after clarifying the legal structure of the right upon which it operates. It therefore first reconstructs the right to health as both a social and an inviolable right, and then examines how population stratification and algorithmic tools reshape the forms of protection directed to its fulfilment. The first part analyses social rights as constitutionally recognised legal positions whose effectiveness requires implementing rules, the establishment of a public service, resources and benefits, without that mediation diminishing their fundamental nature. The right to health is read within the personalist horizon of the Constitution, in which the subject of protection is the concrete person, the homme situé, placed within the material conditions that affect the full development of the human person. Article 32 of the Constitution is therefore understood as a complex provision, encompassing a plurality of heterogeneous subjective legal positions: the claim to healthcare, freedom of treatment, the interest of the community, and the organisational and financial limits affecting the availability of services. The second part identifies the National Health Service as the principal legal framework through which Article 32 is implemented. The crisis of public healthcare is read as a crisis in the relationship between health needs, organisation, planning, resources, continuity of care and the uniform territorial distribution of services. Sustainability therefore assumes a legal meaning broader than financial restraint, since it concerns the capacity to preserve over time the conditions through which the right to health receives concrete implementation. Within this framework, algorithmic population stratification is reconstructed as a form of public knowledge of healthcare need, capable of bringing the relationship between actual needs and service responses closer together. Through stratification, need may be detected, graded and followed over time, thereby orienting proactive medicine, patient management, healthcare planning and the assessment of outcomes. The initiatives of the Minister of Health, in implementation of the NRRP, are examined as stages in the reorganisation of territorial care, aimed at overcoming a merely reactive model of protection based on already expressed demand. The final part investigates the legal conditions of data-based health knowledge. The Electronic Health Record, the Health Data Ecosystem, the GDPR, the Italian Data Protection Code, the European Health Data Space and European and national AI regulation are assessed in their capacity to protect the rights of persons, in both their positive and negative dimensions. Predictive models affect the bundle of subjective legal positions underlying the right to health, since algorithmic knowledge of needs can support the administrative inquiry underpinning healthcare planning and the appropriateness of responses only if it remains anchored to the personalist structure of Article 32. Anticipation of need must not compress freedom of treatment, nor turn classification into an automatic mechanism of enrolment in care pathways.
La ricerca indaga il rapporto tra diritto alla salute, transizione digitale del Servizio sanitario nazionale e conoscenza dei bisogni di salute attraverso dati, modelli predittivi e algoritmi. La transizione digitale viene assunta come processo di cambiamento che incide sulle forme di soddisfacimento dei bisogni di salute. Sul piano metodologico, il lavoro muove dalla convinzione che la transizione digitale possa essere compresa solo dopo avere chiarito la struttura giuridica del diritto sul quale essa incide. Da qui la necessità di ricostruire anzitutto il diritto alla salute come diritto sociale e inviolabile, per poi esaminare il modo in cui stratificazione della popolazione e strumenti algoritmici modificano le forme di tutela volte al suo soddisfacimento. La prima parte ricostruisce i diritti sociali come situazioni giuridiche costituzionalmente riconosciute, la cui effettività richiede una disciplina di svolgimento, l’istituzione di un servizio pubblico, risorse e prestazioni, senza che tale mediazione ne riduca la natura fondamentale. Il diritto alla salute viene letto entro l’orizzonte personalista della Costituzione, nel quale il soggetto della tutela è la persona concreta, l’homme situé, collocata nelle condizioni materiali che incidono sul pieno sviluppo della persona umana. Da qui deriva la necessità di intendere l’art. 32 Cost. come disposizione complessa, attraversata da un fascio di situazioni giuridiche soggettive tra loro eterogenee, nel quale la pretesa alle cure convive con libertà di cura, interesse della collettività e limiti che incidono sulla disponibilità delle prestazioni, quale quello organizzativo ed economico-finanziario. La seconda parte individua nel Servizio sanitario nazionale la principale disciplina di svolgimento dell’art. 32 Cost. La crisi della sanità pubblica viene letta come crisi del rapporto tra bisogni di salute, organizzazione, programmazione, risorse, continuità della cura e uniforme distribuzione territoriale delle prestazioni. In questa prospettiva, la sostenibilità assume un significato giuridico più ampio del contenimento finanziario, poiché riguarda la capacità di conservare nel tempo le condizioni attraverso cui il diritto alla salute riceve concreta attuazione. Dentro questo percorso si colloca la stratificazione della popolazione per mezzo di strumenti algoritmici, ricostruita come forma di conoscenza pubblica del fabbisogno sanitario, idonea a rendere più aderente il rapporto tra bisogni effettivi e risposte del servizio. Attraverso la stratificazione, il bisogno può essere rilevato, graduato e seguito nel tempo, orientando medicina di iniziativa, presa in carico, programmazione sanitaria e verifica degli esiti. Le iniziative del Ministro della Salute, in attuazione del PNRR, sono esaminate come snodi di una riorganizzazione dell’assistenza territoriale orientata a superare una tutela reattiva, fondata sulla domanda già manifestata. La parte finale indaga le condizioni giuridiche della conoscenza sanitaria fondata sui dati. Il Fascicolo sanitario elettronico, l’Ecosistema dati sanitari, il GDPR, il Codice privacy, lo spazio europeo dei dati sanitari (EHDS) e la disciplina sull’intelligenza artificiale europea e nazionale sono valutati nella loro capacità di garantire la tutela dei diritti delle persone, tanto della dimensione positiva quanto di quella negativa. I modelli predittivi incidono sul fascio di situazioni giuridiche soggettive sottese al diritto alla salute, poiché la conoscenza algoritmica dei bisogni può sostenere l’istruttoria della programmazione sanitaria e l’appropriatezza delle risposte solo se resta ricondotta alla struttura personalista dell’art. 32 Cost., evitando che l’anticipazione del bisogno comprima la libertà di cura o trasformi la classificazione in automatismo di presa in carico.
Diritto alla salute e amministrazione predittiva. La persona nel governo digitale dei bisogni di cura
SCHILLIZZI, ANGELO
2026
Abstract
This research examines the relationship between the right to health, the digital transition of the Italian National Health Service, and the public knowledge of health needs through data, predictive models and algorithms. The digital transition is understood as a process of change affecting the forms through which health needs are met. Methodologically, the thesis proceeds from the premise that such a transition can be properly understood only after clarifying the legal structure of the right upon which it operates. It therefore first reconstructs the right to health as both a social and an inviolable right, and then examines how population stratification and algorithmic tools reshape the forms of protection directed to its fulfilment. The first part analyses social rights as constitutionally recognised legal positions whose effectiveness requires implementing rules, the establishment of a public service, resources and benefits, without that mediation diminishing their fundamental nature. The right to health is read within the personalist horizon of the Constitution, in which the subject of protection is the concrete person, the homme situé, placed within the material conditions that affect the full development of the human person. Article 32 of the Constitution is therefore understood as a complex provision, encompassing a plurality of heterogeneous subjective legal positions: the claim to healthcare, freedom of treatment, the interest of the community, and the organisational and financial limits affecting the availability of services. The second part identifies the National Health Service as the principal legal framework through which Article 32 is implemented. The crisis of public healthcare is read as a crisis in the relationship between health needs, organisation, planning, resources, continuity of care and the uniform territorial distribution of services. Sustainability therefore assumes a legal meaning broader than financial restraint, since it concerns the capacity to preserve over time the conditions through which the right to health receives concrete implementation. Within this framework, algorithmic population stratification is reconstructed as a form of public knowledge of healthcare need, capable of bringing the relationship between actual needs and service responses closer together. Through stratification, need may be detected, graded and followed over time, thereby orienting proactive medicine, patient management, healthcare planning and the assessment of outcomes. The initiatives of the Minister of Health, in implementation of the NRRP, are examined as stages in the reorganisation of territorial care, aimed at overcoming a merely reactive model of protection based on already expressed demand. The final part investigates the legal conditions of data-based health knowledge. The Electronic Health Record, the Health Data Ecosystem, the GDPR, the Italian Data Protection Code, the European Health Data Space and European and national AI regulation are assessed in their capacity to protect the rights of persons, in both their positive and negative dimensions. Predictive models affect the bundle of subjective legal positions underlying the right to health, since algorithmic knowledge of needs can support the administrative inquiry underpinning healthcare planning and the appropriateness of responses only if it remains anchored to the personalist structure of Article 32. Anticipation of need must not compress freedom of treatment, nor turn classification into an automatic mechanism of enrolment in care pathways.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


