Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33331523›Full record

ArticleRevista de saude publica2020

Health financing in Brazil and the goals of the 2030 Agenda: high risk of failure.

Fabiola Sulpino Vieira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista de saude publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Fabiola Sulpino VieiraInstituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Diretoria de Estudos e Políticas Sociais. Brasília, DF, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7377-7302

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the financing of the Unified Health System (SUS) from 2010 to 2019 and analyze the recent trends in the allocation of federal resources to large areas of operation of the system, as well as the possibility of achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 of the 2030 Agenda.

methodsData from the budgetary and financial execution of the federation entities were obtained. Transfers from the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MH) to the municipal and state departments and their direct applications were identified according to large final areas of SUS and middle areas. Basic descriptive statistics, graphs and tables were used to analyze the execution of expenses by these areas.

resultsPublic spending per capita on health increased between 2010 and 2018. However, compared to 2014, it reduced 3% in 2018. There was a displacement of the allocation of federal resources to the detriment of transfers to the states (-21%). There are also losses of health surveillance in favor of primary care and pharmaceuticals. In the case of primary care, the increase in spending was tied to changes in policy and the expansion of resources allocated by parliamentary amendments. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the increase was due to the incorporation of new drugs, including vaccines, judicialization, increased spending on blood products and centralization, in the MH, of the purchase of items of high budgetary impact.

conclusionIf there is no change in the current SUS financing framework, something unlikely under Constitutional Amendment No. 95, associated with the redefinition of health policy priorities, the risk of non-compliance with the SDG 3 of the Agenda 2030 is very high.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentHealthcare FinancingHealth ExpendituresNational Health ProgramsBrazilGoalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID33331523
PMCPMC7703550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.