As emendas parlamentares no orçamento federal da saúde

Abstract

The public budget in Brazil has undergone significant changes since enactment of the 1988 Federal Constitution. Mechanisms for integration of planning activities and budget execution have been created, and Legislative participation in budgeting has increased. Congressional amendments appeared in this context. The article discusses the participation of Congressional amendments in the Federal health budget from 1997 to 2006, combining elements for discussion of funding mechanisms and health planning. Such amendments played a significant role in the budget process, accounting for over half of health funds in some years. The North was the region of Brazil that received most resources resulting from Congressional amendments, suggesting the need for further studies on the relationship between the amendments' enforcement and political party coalitions. The article concludes that the amendments cannot be understood solely as a funding mechanism, but mainly as a political instrument, and that they are not necessarily subject to health planning logic.

Imprecisão na estimação orçamentária dos municípios brasileiros

“…A ampla regulamentação e apoio no processo de apresentação de emendas no âmbito Federal traz uma grande participação ao Legislativo: a parcela do orçamento definida pelo Legislativo através de emendas chega a 2% do total e a 10% dos recursos de capital (BAPTISTA et al, 2012), fenômeno que não é observado nos municípios.…”

Coronavirus, Capitalism in Crisis and the Perversity of Public Health in Bolsonaro’s Brazil

“…In addition to these sources, other alternatives for financing the system that are outside the health sector 7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 were not even institutionally guided, such as: the Tax on Large Fortunes (bill in Congress), with a rate of 1%/ year, could raise $19.8 billion a year; the return of funds from the Electoral Fund withdrawn from Health ($100.0 million); the 45% refund of the value of DPVAT Insurance (Traffic Accident Insurance) to SUS (approximately $400 million); and the renewal for the planning of the SUS of the resources of the Parliamentary Amendments, of which 50% are investment expenditures ($8.9 billion) that could be oriented to address the hospital pandemic. 50 In spite of the serious de-financing of SUS, the government tends to ignore the solutions mentioned above, insisting on a partial discourse related to the management of services. It is a fact that SUS is complex, extremely decentralized, and with very high capillarity in the national territory.…”

Programa Academia da Saúde: correlação entre internações por doenças crônicas não transmissíveis e adesão nos municípios brasileiros, 2011-2017

“…As such, it has been noted that political and party-political factors and technical capacities stand out in the redistribution of resources that should benefit places in greater need. 7,8 With regard to the choice of municipalities to adhere to the HFCP, there is no formal and official definition of criteria that take into consideration the socioeconomic status and epidemiological situation of municipalities as being a priority in the implementation process, which would be the ideal as it would ensure coherence with the Program's social purpose. Added to this is the fact of the HFCP being a Brazilian National Health System (SUS) public policy, anchored in the System's principle of equality while, at the same time, depending on Congress funding to build infrastructure and maintain activities, the original purpose of which is to allocate public funds and meet the needs of more socioeconomically vulnerable populations and territories.…”

“…Notwithstanding, the precarious nature of the criteria used in relation to need and technical and political feasibility interferes with the fulfillment of this commitment. 8 The adherence procedure, i.e. allocation, is linked to funding of building works and is classified in two phases.…”