English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: to analyze the constitutionality of the Constitutional Amendment n. 95/2016, focusing especially on the minimum standard of public investments on health care provisions, in light of the constitutional norms that impose its adequate financing, by confronting the financing projections of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) with the non-regression clause on social rights. Methodology: theoretical research and documentary analysis were made, based on literature and corresponding legal norms review, alongside with empirical data, so as to indirectly observe the analyzed phenomenon, through the technical procedure of documentary review. Results: the Constitutional Amendment n. 95/2016 transgresses the guidelines of integrality and universality, which rules the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) as it tends to increase the System’s financing deficit, which prevents the population from having access to adequate and progressive public health care provisions. Discussion: the new fiscal regime implemented by the Amendment will go on for two decades, until 2036. Official discourse pleas the need for a new public expenditure system, stressed by the limitation of public expenses and investments mostly on social services and provisions, as a way of achieving economy growth. Conclusions: public expenditure limits established by the Constitutional Amendment n. 95/2016 increases the ineffectiveness of the right to health and violates the constitutional premise of guaranteeing adequate and progressive financing for public health care provisions, subverting the instrumental aspect of public budgets and resources for the sake of fiscal austerity. Besides, it violates the non regression clause of social rights, as it imposes a regression on the financing instruments to the System’s.

Novo regime fiscal frente à garantia constitucional de financiamento adequado das políticas públicas de saúde