MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411131535 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1568351

Public health financing in Brazil (2019–2022): an analysis of the national health fund and implications for health management

2025· article· en· W4411131535 on OpenAlexaff
Luiza Nunes Marinho, Stephen Campbell, Isabela Barboza da Silva Tavares Amaral, Brian Godman, Johanna C. Meyer, Isabella Piassi Dias Godói

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthBusinessHealth management systemFinanceHealth policyMedicineEnvironmental healthNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Unified Health System (SUS) in Brazil provides free, universal health services to all inhabitants of the country. This study aims to describe the allocation of public health resources in Brazil, both overall and across regions, based on National Health Fund (FNS) data from 2019 to 2022. The goal is to provide an understanding of the profile and distribution of resources sourced exclusively from the federal government during this period. Methods: A quantitative, descriptive study using data extracted from the FNS portal covering the period 2019-2022, along with publications and open data linked to Brazil's Ministry of Health, was undertaken. Data collection included the resources allocated to health within each of the financing blocks (operational and investment), according to FNS as well as the Transparency Portal of the Office of the Comptroller General for more information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of USD 75.310 billion (406.283 billion BRL) was allocated to health services between 2019 and 2022, with 64.6% allocated to Specialized, Medium, and High Complexity Care and 30.2% to Primary Health Care (USD 21.096 billion). A lower percentage was dedicated to investment actions within the SUS, and there was heterogeneous distribution of resources across the country's regions, with the Southeast receiving the most resources (38.5%), while the Central-West region received only 7.7%. In addition, more than USD 111 billion (600 billion BRL) was allocated by the federal government to the COVID-19 pandemic response, not exclusively for health-related purposes. Conclusion: The distribution profile of resources transferred from the FNS reflected population sizes but it is less clear whether resources were allocated based on need. Overall, there was a scarcity of resources allocated to areas such as investment. However, the COVID-19 pandemic represented a considerable impact on government funds. Health and social needs must be assessed and considered going forward to improve the allocation of resources within a unified health system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicHealth, Nursing, Elderly CareFrench-language works237,207