Body mass index and sex differences for mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a path analysis using a brazilian national database.

Previous studies have shown that associations between obesity and other comorbidities favor worse outcomes in COVID-19. However, it is not clear how these factors interrelate and whether effects on men and women differ. We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study using a national COVID-19 inpatient database. We studied differences in direct and indirect effects of obesity and comorbidities according to sex and body mass index (BMI) categories in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Brazil using path analysis models and logistic regression. For men, path analysis showed a direct association between BMI and death and a negative correlation of death and chronic cardiovascular disease (CCD). For women, the association of BMI and death was indirect, mediated by admission to the ICU and comorbidities and association with CCD was non-significant. In the logistic regression analyses, there was a positive association between death and BMI, age, diabetes mellitus, kidney and lung diseases and ICU admission. We highlight the need to consider the distinct impact of obesity and sex on COVID-19, of monitoring of BMI and of the design for specific male-targeted approaches to manage obesity.

Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%).La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde ­ o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) ­ em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

[Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersGasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa]. / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%). La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

[Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersGasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: calcular o que importa]. / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The 30% target for current healthcare spending on PHC proposed by Compact 30-30-30 (Pan American Health Organization) would be surpassed by the WHO definition, but it would be far from achieved by the OECD definition. The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre o cálculo do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme os métodos propostos pela Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), segundo a metodologia System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011), em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão única de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. Esses valores ultrapassam a meta de 30% do GCS em APS sugerida no Pacto 30.30.30 da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, com a definição proposta pela OMS, e essa meta estaria longe de ser alcançada com a definição proposta pela OCDE. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato que é proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes serviços de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito o cálculo e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa / Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: calcular o que importa

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%); superarían la meta del 30% del GCS en APS que propone el Pacto 30-30-30 de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud, con la definición de la OMS y estarían muy lejos de alcanzarla con la de la OCDE. La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The 30% target for current healthcare spending on PHC proposed by Compact 30-30-30 (Pan American Health Organization) would be surpassed by the WHO definition, but it would be far from achieved by the OECD definition. The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre o cálculo do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme os métodos propostos pela Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), segundo a metodologia System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011), em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão única de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. Esses valores ultrapassam a meta de 30% do GCS em APS sugerida no Pacto 30.30.30 da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, com a definição proposta pela OMS, e essa meta estaria longe de ser alcançada com a definição proposta pela OCDE. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato que é proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes serviços de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito o cálculo e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%).La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde - o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) - em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa / Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde - o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) - em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%). La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

SUS financing and Covid-19: history, federative participation, and responses to the pandemic / Financiamento do SUS e Covid-19: histórico, participações federativas e respostas à pandemia

This essay discusses financial resources for Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) in a historical and future perspective, considering the health and economic challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. As always and more than ever, we need to discuss SUS financing. This is aggravated in intensity by the context of chronic economic recession that the country has been experiencing in 2015 and 2016, followed by  stagnation in the following years and accentuated in urgency by the recession in the second quarter of 2020 and that is expected to deepen in the coming years. The pandemic happens in a context of diminishing federal participation in SUS financing, little space for states to expand their sources of financing and several problems of coordination between federal entities. We argue that facing the pandemic necessarily involves an expansion of resources for financing SUS and it has a great dependence on the performance of the federal government. However, even with the urgency that the pandemic demanded, the new resources approved by the National Congress for public health system has been quite slow. We conclude that the prospects do not point to prioritizing the SUS and expanding its funding in the post-pandemic period.

Esse ensaio discute o financiamento do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) em perspectiva histórica e futura, considerando os desafios sanitários e econômicos impostos pela pandemia de Covid-19. Como sempre e mais do que nunca, precisamos discuti-lo. Essa necessidade cresce em premência a partir da recessão econômica que o país viveu em 2015 e 2016, pela estagnação da economia nos anos seguintes e pela recessão que já surge no segundo trimestre de 2020 com previsão de aprofundar-se nos próximos anos. A pandemia acontece em um contexto de redução da participação federal no financiamento, pouco espaço para estados ampliarem suas fontes de financiamento e problemas de coordenação entre os entes federativos. No caso do financiamento das ações e serviços públicos de saúde (ASPS) para enfrentamento à pandemia, argumentamos nesse texto, que ele passa necessariamente pela ampliação dos recursos alocados ao SUS, com grande dependência da atuação do governo federal. Contudo, nem com a urgência que demanda a pandemia houve rapidez na liberação e execução dos novos recursos aprovados pelo Congresso Nacional. Concluímos que as perspectivas não apontam para uma priorização do SUS e ampliação do seu financiamento no período pós-pandêmico.

Factors influencing pharmaceutical pricing - a scoping review of academic literature in health science.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical pricing has only recently gained space in mainstream health science literature. OBJECTIVES: Bibliometric and content description of health science academic literature and ad hoc analysis of grey literature on factors influencing pharmaceutical pricing on databases commonly accessed by healthcare professionals. METHODS: Scoping study with no time limits performed in Medline, Scopus and Scielo, and relevant sites and databases for grey literature, using search terms with database-appropriate keywords. RESULTS: Two hundred four articles were published in 103 peer-reviewed journals between 1981 and 2016 (last search year). In grey literature 78 documents were retrieved in the final selection. Five key thematic clusters for analysing pharmaceutical pricing emerged: market dynamics, segmented into (i) supply-related, (ii) consumer-related and (iii) product-related; (iv) trading strategies, either buyer's or seller's and (v) regulatory approach. In peer-reviewed literature there is an overall dominance of themes referring to trading strategies and regulatory approaches and a wide thematic cluster scope. Over half of this literature was produced after the year 2010. International agency technical papers make up the most significant contributions of grey literature, with a clear focus on regulatory approaches to pricing and wider consideration of emerging countries. Research lags in the literature on factors affecting pharmaceutical pricing include impacts of financing schemes, market liberalization, internet trading and biosimilars on prices, with insufficient discussion identified for the effects of discounts/rebates, profits and price transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in pharmaceutical pricing literature is increasing. Robust evidence-producing study designs for pricing interventions will be a welcome development.

Systematic review with meta-analyses and critical appraisal of clinical prediction rules for pulmonary tuberculosis in hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies evaluating clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for adult inpatients suspected to have pulmonary tuberculosis. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses. SETTING: Hospitals. Patients Inpatients at least 15 years of age admitted to acute care. METHODS: A search was conducted in 5 indexed electronic databases with no language or year of publication restrictions. We performed a meta-analysis for those CPRs with at least 2 validation studies. Results were reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: Of the 461 abstracts selected, 36 articles were fully analyzed and 11 articles were included, yielding 8 CPRs derived in 4 countries. Broad validation studies were identified for 2 CPRs. The most frequent clinical predictors were fever and weight loss. All CPRs included chest imaging signs. Most CPRs were derived in countries with a low prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis and included homeless, immigrants, and those who reacted to the purified protein derivative test. Both of the CPRs derived in countries with a high prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis strongly relied on chest radiograph predictors. Accuracy of the different CPRs was high (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.79-0.91). Meta-analysis of 4 validation studies for Wisnivesky's CPR indicates optimistic pooled results: sensitivity, 94.1% (95% CI, 89.7%-96.7%); negative likelihood ratio, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.40). CONCLUSION: On the basis of a critical appraisal of the 2 best validated CPRs, the presence of weight loss and/or fever in inpatients warrants obtaining a chest radiograph, regardless of the presence of productive cough. If the chest radiograph is abnormal, the patient should be placed in isolation until more specific test results are available. Validation in different settings is required to maximize external generalization of existing CPRs.

Prevalence of psychoactive drug use among medical students in Rio de Janeiro.

BACKGROUND: Drug use and abuse may hamper learning capabilities and the development of technical skills in medical students and, therefore, the quality of care offered to patients. The aim of this investigation was to estimate the prevalence of psychoactive drug use among medical students of public universities in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and to identify characteristics associated with substance use. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional investigation designed to include all medical students of four universities. The final sample included 1,054 students. Patterns of licit and illicit drug use (at least once in lifetime drug use, drug use in the last 30 days (LTD) and CAGE) before and during medical school were assessed by a multiple-choice, self-administered anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Alcohol abuse was more prevalent among male students from higher income families. Alcohol LTD use was more prevalent among male students with college-educated parents. Tobacco, cannabis and inhalant lifetime use was more prevalent among males and tranquillizer use among females. Tobacco, cannabis and tranquillizer lifetime use was more prevalent among students with divorced or dead parents. Inhalant lifetime use was more prevalent among students from higher income families. Students who had college-educated, divorced or dead parents or evidenced tobacco, cocaine or inhalant lifetime use were more prevalent among cannabis users. Male students from higher income families had higher prevalence of cocaine lifetime use. CONCLUSION: Substance use in this group of medical students is not widespread compared to rates reported for developed countries. Preventive efforts should focus on alcohol and cannabis use by medical students.