O financiamento da infraestrutura urbana de esporte no Brasil: fontes, magnitude e direcionamento do orçamento federal de 2004 a 2019 / Financing urban sports infrastructure in Brazil: sources, magnitude and direction of the federal budget from 2004 to 2019

O objetivo desta investigação científica foi analisar o financiamento e gasto do orçamento público federal com a infraestrutura urbana de esporte de 2004 a 2019. O estudo se caracteriza como uma pesquisa descritivo-exploratória, de cunho quantiqualitativo, desenvolvida a partir de levantamento documental no Siga Brasil, tendo sido os dados analisados a partir dos indicadores "fontes de financiamento", "magnitude" e "direção do gasto". A maioria dos recursos para infraestrutura de esporte foi proveniente do Ministério do Esporte/Secretaria Especial do Esporte e de recursos ordinários advindos de emendas parlamentares. Ao longo do tempo oscilaram bastante os referidos gastos, tendo eles sofrido contingenciamentos. O direcionamento dos recursos se deu, principalmente, com grandes eventos esportivos e esteve concentrado na região Sudeste.

The objective of this scientific investigation was to analyze the financing and expenditure of the federal public budget on urban sports infrastructure from 2004 to 2019. The study is characterized as descriptive-exploratory research, with a quantitative and qualitative nature, developed from a survey document in Siga Brasil, the data having been analyzed based on indicators of funding sources, magnitude and direction of expenditure. Most of the resources for sports infrastructure came from the Ministério do Esporte/Secretaria Especial do Esporte and from ordinary resources arising from parliamentary amendments. Over time, these expenses fluctuated a lot, having suffered restrictions. The allocation of resources took place, mainly, with major sporting events and were concentrated in the Southeast region.

Financial fluency: demystifying accounting and business planning for the reproductive medicine specialist.

In today's ever-changing business climate, reproductive health specialists are realizing that financial fluency is key to growing and maintaining a successful practice. Although financial fundamentals such as accounting may seem complex, both academic and private practice reproductive specialists who understand these topics can benefit in making business decisions for their practices. We describe the key financial fundamentals that reproductive health specialists should know, including basic concepts of finance and accounting, payments and receivables, capital budgeting, and business planning, and interpreting balance sheets, income statements, and cash-flow statements.

Resource scarcity and prioritization decisions in medical care: A lab experiment with heterogeneous patient types.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems around the world have received additional funding, while at other times, financial support has been lowered to consolidate public spending. Such budget changes likely affect provision behavior in health care. We study how different degrees of resource scarcity affect medical service provision and, in consequence, patients' health. In a controlled lab environment, physicians are paid by capitation and allocate limited resources to several patients. This implies a trade-off between physicians' profits and patients' health benefits. We vary levels of resource scarcity and patient characteristics systematically and observe that most subjects in the role of physician devote a relatively stable share of budget to patient treatment, implying that they provide fewer services when they face more severe budget constraints. Average patient benefits decrease in proportion to physician budgets. The majority of subjects chooses an allocation that leads to equal patient benefits as opposed to allocating resources efficiently.

Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit citizen preferences for national budget resource allocation in Uganda, examine respondents' preferences for health vis-à-vis other sectors, and compare these preferences with actual government budget allocations. METHODS: We surveyed 432 households in urban and rural areas of Mukono district in central Uganda.We elicited citizens' preferences for resource allocation across all sectors using a best-worst scaling (BWS) survey. The BWS survey consisted of 16 sectors corresponding to the Uganda national budget line items. Respondents chose, from a subset of four sectors across 16 choice tasks, which sectors they thought were most and least important to allocate resources to. We utilized the relative best-minus-worst score method and a conditional logistic regression to obtain ranked preferences for resource allocation across sectors. We then compared the respondents' preferences with actual government budget allocations. RESULTS: The health sector was the top ranked sector where 82% of respondents selected health as the most important sector for the government to fund, but it was ranked sixth in national budget allocation, encompassing 6.4% of the total budget. Beyond health, water and environment, agriculture, and social development sectors were largely underfunded compared to respondents' preferences. Works and transport, education, security, and justice, law and order received a larger share of the national budget compared to respondents' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents from Mukono district in Uganda, we found that citizens' preferences for resource allocation across sectors, including for the health sector, were fundamentally misaligned with current government budget allocations. Evidence of respondents' strong preferences for allocating resources to the health sector could help stakeholders make the case for increased health sector allocations. Greater investment in health is not only essential to satisfy citizens' needs and preferences, but also to meet the government's health goals to improve health, strengthen health systems, and achieve universal health coverage.

Reflexões sobre a gestão do Sistema Único de Saúde para a coordenação no enfrentamento da COVID-19 / Reflections on the management of Brazilian Unified Health System for the coordination in facing COVID-19 / Reflexiones sobre la gestión del Sistema Unico de Salud de Brasil para la coordinación en el enfrentamiento a la COVID-19

Objetivo: Refletir acerca da gestão em saúde do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), na perspectiva de desafios e possibilidades para superar lacunas de coordenação no enfrentamento da COVID-19. Método: Trata-se de estudo reflexivo, fundamentado na formulação discursiva sobre a gestão em saúde no SUS organizado nas seguintes seções: introdução com a contextualização da temática, macrodesafios no âmbito do SUS na coordenação da atenção à saúde no enfrentamento da COVID-19, aspectos para subsidiar ações de coordenação da gestão e considerações finais. Resultados: Constatam-se desafios na coordenação entre os entes federativos, de financiamento, de consolidação da vigilância em saúde, da regulação, da capacidade instalada e gestão de pessoas que remetem à importância de estabelecer estratégias para o fortalecimento do SUS, principalmente, na coordenação da gestão em saúde. Conclusões e implicações para a prática: Destaca-se a relevância da autoridade da gestão regulatória no SUS para a coordenação e sua potencialidade de organização em prover melhores condições de atenção, porém, entende-se que é necessário revistar a territorialidade, o planejamento e o processo de trabalho, como elementos constituintes da vigilância em saúde.

Objective: to reflect on the Unified Health System (SUS) health management, from the perspective of challenges and possibilities to overcome coordination gaps in facing COVID-19. Method: this is a reflective study, based on the discursive formulation on health management in SUS organized in the following sections: an introduction with the context of the theme, macro challenges in the scope of SUS in the coordination of health care in facing COVID-19, aspects of supporting management oordination actions and final considerations. Results: there are challenges in the coordination among federal entities, financing, consolidation of health surveillance, regulation, installed capacity, and in the management of people who refer to the importance of establishing strategies to strengthen SUS, mainly in the coordination of healthcare management. Conclusions and implications for practice: the relevance of the regulatory management authority in SUS for coordination and its organizational potential in providing better care conditions is highlighted, but it is understood that it is necessary to review the territoriality, planning, and work process, as constituent elements of health surveillance.

Objetivo: reflexionar sobre la gestión de la salud del Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), desde la perspectiva de los retos y posibilidades de superar las lagunas de coordinación en el enfrentamiento a la COVID-19. Método: Se trata de un estudio reflexivo, basado en la formulación discursiva sobre la gestión de la salud en el SUS organizada en las siguientes secciones: introducción con la contextualización del tema, macro retos en el ámbito del SUS en la coordinación de la atención de la salud para el enfrentamiento a la COVID-19, aspectos para apoyar las acciones de coordinación de la gestión y onsideraciones finales. Resultados: existen desafíos en la coordinación entre las entidades federales, el financiamiento, la consolidación de la vigilancia de la salud, la regulación, la capacidad instalada y la gestión de las personas que se refieren a la importancia de establecer estrategias para fortalecer el SUS principalmente en la coordinación de la gestión en salud. Conclusiones e implicaciones para la práctica: Se destaca la relevancia de la autoridad de gestión reguladora en el SUS para la coordinación y su potencial organizativo para proporcionar mejores condiciones de atención, aunque se entiende que es necesario revisar la territorialidad, la planificación y el proceso de trabajo, como elementos constitutivos de la vigilancia de la salud.

Budgeting for Results.

Budgeting is a mandatory yet misunderstood function in most organizations because of its current focus on estimating revenues and expenses. A budget should be a roadmap specifying in dollars and cents organizational goals and how management performance will be assessed. Like a roadmap, its value is entirely dependent on whether the plan is followed. Improving treatment and controlling costs require implementing budgets that focus managers' attention on the elements of production systems that they control and lead directly to better results. The choice between using an incremental, flexible, zero-base, program, or activity-based budget to chart the desired path of departments and organizations should be made in light of organizational goals and the role of the manager within the organization.

Maryland's Global Budget Revenue Program and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 Maryland began a global budget revenue (GBR) program where hospitals were assigned a global budget for each year. We hypothesized that this program would be associated with changes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patient risk profile, reductions in potentially preventable complications (PPCs) and 30-day hospital readmissions, and low annual per patient charge growth. METHODS: Patients having isolated CABG surgery in Maryland between fiscal years 2013 and 2017 were included. Patient characteristics, admission all-payer refined severity of illness, PPCs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and per patient hospital charges were compared between years. The impact of Maryland's GBR program on PPCs and 30-day hospital readmissions was evaluated using interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: During the study period 11,070 patients had CABG surgery. The percentage of patients with major or extreme severity of illness at admission differed significantly between years (34.6% in 2013 vs 46.1% in 2017, P < .001). There was a significant reduction in mean PPC incidence of -22.8% (95% confidence interval, -29.8% to -15.8%) after GBR implementation but no significant reduction in 30-day hospital readmissions (-2.7%; 95% confidence interval, -6.0% to 0.6%). Without adjusting for inflation the annual per patient charge growth remained between -1.4% and 2.6% from 2013 to 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Maryland's GBR program was associated with significant PPC reductions, minimal charge growth, and no significant change in 30-day hospital readmissions during its first 14 fiscal quarters. These findings suggest that Maryland's GBR program achieved some but not all of its predefined goals in CABG patients.

Impact of Global Budget Revenue Policy on Emergency Department Efficiency in the State of Maryland.

INTRODUCTION: On January 1, 2014, the State of Maryland implemented the Global Budget Revenue (GBR) program. We investigate the impact of GBR on length of stay (LOS) for inpatients in emergency departments (ED) in Maryland. METHODS: We used the Hospital Compare data reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and CMS Cost Reports Hospital Form 2552-10 from January 1, 2012-March 31, 2016, with GBR hospitals from Maryland and hospitals from West Virginia (WV), Delaware (DE), and Rhode Island (RI). We implemented difference-in-differences analysis and investigated the impact of GBR implementation on the LOS or ED1b scores of Maryland hospitals using a mixed-effects model with a state-level fixed effect, a hospital-level random effect, and state-level heterogeneity. RESULTS: The GBR impact estimator was 9.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.06 to 11.87, p-value<0.001) for Maryland GBR hospitals, which implies, on average, that GBR implementation added 9.47 minutes per year to the time that hospital inpatients spent in the ED in the first two years after GBR implementation. The effect of the total number of hospital beds was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.089 to 0.330, p-value = 0 .001), which suggests that the bigger the hospital, the longer the ED1b score. The state-level fixed effects for WV were -106.96 (95% CI, -175.06 to -38.86, p-value = 0.002), for DE it was 6.51 (95% CI, -8.80 to 21.82, p-value=0.405), and for RI it was -54.48 (95% CI, -82.85 to -26.10, p-value<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that GBR implementation has had a statistically significant negative impact on the efficiency measure ED1b of Maryland hospital EDs from January 2014 to April 2016. We also found that the significant state-level fixed effect implies that the same inpatient might experience different ED processing times in each of the four states that we studied.