Distortions of parliamentary amendments to the equitable allocation of federal resources to the PAB / Distorções das emendas parlamentares à alocação equitativa de recursos federais ao PAB

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE Analyze the implications of parliamentary amendments (EP) for the model of equitable allocation of resources from the Fixed Primary Care Minimum (PAB-Fixo) to municipalities in the period from 2015 to 2019. METHODS A descriptive and exploratory study was conducted on allocating federal resources to the PAB-Fixo and on the increment in the PAB by parliamentary amendment. The municipalities were classified into four groups according to degrees of socioeconomic vulnerability defined by the Ministry of Health for the allocation of PAB-Fixo resources. The transfers from the Ministry by parliamentary amendment were identified. The proportions of municipalities benefiting per group were analyzed by resources allocated from the PAB-Fixo and increment to the minimum by EP. RESULTS There were reduced resources allocated to the PAB-Fixo (from R$ 6.04 billion to R$ 5.51 billion, -8.8%) and increased increment to PAB by parliamentary amendment (from R$ 95.06 million to R$ 5.58 billion, 5.767%) between 2015 and 2019. The participation of municipalities by the group of those favored by EP was similar to that in the PAB-Fixo. In the proportion of resources for amendments, the municipalities of group I (most vulnerable) had more participation, and those of group IV had less participation if compared to the allocation of the PAB-Fixo. The distribution of resources by the parliamentary amendment did not cover all municipalities, even the most vulnerable ones, i.e., belonging to groups I and II. There was great inequality of resources per capita according to the groups of municipalities. CONCLUSION The EP distorted the model of equitable allocation of resources proposed by the Ministry of Health for the PAB-Fixo, by allocating resources in a much more significant proportion to the municipalities of group I and much less to those of group IV, which is in disagreement with this model. Furthermore, this distribution by amendments does not benefit all municipalities, not even the most vulnerable.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Analisar as implicações das emendas parlamentares (EP) para o modelo de alocação equitativa de recursos do Piso da Atenção Básica Fixo (PAB-Fixo) aos municípios no período de 2015 a 2019. MÉTODOS Realizou-se um estudo descritivo e exploratório da alocação de recursos federais para o PAB-Fixo e para incremento ao PAB por emenda parlamentar. Os municípios foram classificados em quatro grupos, segundo graus de vulnerabilidade socioeconômica definidos pelo Ministério da Saúde para destinação de recursos do PAB-Fixo. Os repasses do ministério por emenda parlamentar foram identificados, analisando-se as proporções de municípios beneficiados em cada grupo por recursos alocados do PAB-Fixo e do incremento ao piso por EP. RESULTADOS Verificou-se redução dos recursos alocados ao PAB-Fixo (de R$ 6,04 bilhões para R$ 5,51 bilhões, -8,8%) e aumento do incremento ao PAB por emenda parlamentar (de R$ 95,06 milhões para R$ 5,58 bilhões, 5.767%) entre 2015 e 2019. A participação dos municípios por grupo dos que foram favorecidos por EP foi semelhante à dos municípios do PAB-Fixo. Na proporção de recursos por emendas, os municípios do grupo I (mais vulneráveis) tiveram maior participação e os do grupo IV, menor participação, se comparada à alocação do PAB-Fixo. A distribuição de recursos por emenda parlamentar não contemplou todos os municípios, mesmo aqueles mais vulneráveis, pertencentes aos grupos I e II. Houve grande desigualdade de recursos per capita segundo os grupos de municípios. CONCLUSÃO As EP distorceram o modelo de alocação equitativa de recursos proposto pelo Ministério da Saúde para o PAB-Fixo, ao destinar recursos em proporção muito maior para os municípios do grupo I e muito menor para os do grupo IV, o que está em desacordo com esse modelo, além disso essa distribuição por emendas não beneficia a todos os municípios, nem mesmo aos mais vulneráveis.

Ruthless Utilitarianism? COVID-19 State Triage Protocols May Subject Patients to Racial Discrimination and Providers to Legal Liability.

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various "triage protocols" to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of "fairness" under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources "should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people."1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is "fair" unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients's legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve."[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people." 2 "Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal." - Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3.

Reciprocity and Liability Protections during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate.

[Difficulties and Policy Recommendations Related to the Deployment of Long-Term Care Resources in Taiwan`s Indigenous Areas].

Changes in the demographic structure in Taiwan have increased the need for long-term care (LTC). Person-centered and community-based care is being advocated. The need to address the specific LTC needs of Taiwan`s indigenous peoples has been a part of national LTC policy since National Long-term Care Plan 2.0 was adopted in 2015. The provision of LTC services and the deployment of related resources in indigenous areas generally lag behind Taiwan`s other areas. Potential reasons for this disparity include lack of in-charge, dedicated units; exclusive use of normative service models in indigenous areas; and conflict between talent cultivation and rooted development. Future policy should focus more on providing cultural care in indigenous areas and on offering more flexible and diversified development possibilities. The implementation of these policies may promote the development of LTC and the successful deployment of LTC resources in Taiwan`s indigenous regions.

Dutifully Defying Death: A Right to Life-saving Emergency Treatment.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides for the right to health. Two questions are considered in this article. Does this right entail a more specific right to life-saving emergency treatment? And if so, should the latter right become justiciable in the domestic courts? Two propositions will be made in this article. First, the right to life-saving emergency treatment is a necessary component of the right to health. Second, the conventional arguments against the justiciability of socio-economic rights do not apply to the right to life-saving emergency treatment. Such a right should be justiciable at the domestic level.

We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of rationing finite healthcare resources to the fore. There has been much academic debate, media attention, and conversation in the homes of everyday individuals about the allocation of medical resources, diagnostic testing kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. Yet decisions to prioritize treatment for some individuals over others occur implicitly and explicitly in everyday practices. The pandemic has propelled the socially taboo and unavoidably prickly issue of healthcare rationing into the public spotlight-and as such, healthcare rationing demands ongoing public attention and transparent discussion. This article concludes that in the aftermath of COVID-19, policymakers should work towards normalizing rationing discussions by engaging in transparent and honest debate in the wider community and public domain. Further, injecting greater openness and objectivity into rationing decisions might go some way towards dismantling the societal taboo surrounding rationing in healthcare.

Rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Vietnam government's experience and preliminary success.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has hit all corners of the world, challenging governments to act promptly in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Due to limited resources and inferior technological capacities, developing countries including Vietnam have faced many challenges in combating the pandemic. Since the first cases were detected on 23 January 2020, Vietnam has undergone a 3-month fierce battle to control the outbreak with stringent measures from the government to mitigate the adverse impacts. In this study, we aim to give insights into the Vietnamese government's progress during the first three months of the outbreak. Additionally, we relatively compare Vietnam's response with that of other Southeast Asia countries to deliver a clear and comprehensive view on disease control strategies. METHODS: The data on the number of COVID-19 confirmed and recovered cases in Vietnam was obtained from the Dashboard for COVID-19 statistics of the Ministry of Health (https://ncov.vncdc.gov.vn/). The review on Vietnam's country-level responses was conducted by searching for relevant government documents issued on the online database 'Vietnam Laws Repository' (https://thuvienphapluat.vn/en/index.aspx), with the grey literature on Google and relevant official websites. A stringency index of government policies and the countries' respective numbers of confirmed cases of nine Southeast Asian countries were adapted from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker). All data was updated as of 24 April 2020. RESULTS: Preliminary positive results have been achieved given that the nation confirmed no new community-transmitted cases since 16 April and zero COVID-19 - related deaths throughout the 3-month pandemic period. To date, the pandemic has been successfully controlled thanks to the Vietnamese government's prompt, proactive and decisive responses including mobilization of the health care systems, security forces, economic policies, along with a creative and effective communication campaign corresponding with crucial milestones of the epidemic's progression. CONCLUSIONS: Vietnam could be one of the role models in pandemic control for low-resource settings. As the pandemic is still ongoing in an unpredictable trajectory, disease control measures should continue to be put in place in the foreseeable short term.

Tragic choices in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: on fairness, consistency and community.

Tragic choices arise during the COVID-19 pandemic when the limited resources made available in acute medical settings cannot be accessed by all patients who need them. In these circumstances, healthcare rationing is unavoidable. It is important in any healthcare rationing process that the interests of the community are recognised, and that decision-making upholds these interests through a fair and consistent process of decision-making. Responding to recent calls (1) to safeguard individuals' legal rights in decision-making in intensive care, and (2) for new authoritative national guidance for decision-making, this paper seeks to clarify what consistency and fairness demand in healthcare rationing during the COVID-19 pandemic, from both a legal and ethical standpoint. The paper begins with a brief review of UK law concerning healthcare resource allocation, considering how community interests and individual rights have been marshalled in judicial deliberation about the use of limited health resources within the National Health Service (NHS). It is then argued that an important distinction needs to be drawn between procedural and outcome consistency, and that a procedurally consistent decision-making process ought to be favoured. Congruent with the position that UK courts have adopted for resource allocation decision-making in the NHS more generally, specific requirements for a procedural framework and substantive triage criteria to be applied within that framework during the COVID-19 pandemic are considered in detail.

Public Appeals Challenging Criteria for Pediatric Organ Transplantation.

In this article, I review the ethical issues that arise in the allocation of deceased-donor organs to children and young adults. By analyzing the public media cases of Sarah Murnaghan, Amelia Rivera, and Riley Hancey, I assess whether public appeals to challenge inclusion and exclusion criteria for organ transplantation are ethical and under which circumstances. The issues of pediatric allocation with limited evidence and candidacy affected by factors such as intellectual disability and marijuana use are specifically discussed. Finally, I suggest that ethical public advocacy can coexist with well-evidenced transplant allocation if and when certain conditions (morally defensible criteria, expert evidence, nonprioritization of the poster child, and greater advocacy for organ transplantation in general) are met.

Who Gets Scarce Medical Resources during a COVID-19 Pandemic? Let's not beat about the Bush.

Except for such rare situations where it might be determined absence of physician's imputability, physicians cannot ̳save the most lives while respecting the legal rights of the patient' without violating the overarching principle ̳every human life has equal value'. Arguing to the contrary is a conscious hypocritical attitude, or in other words, a fiction. Medical law and ethics long since carry with its various fictions. Furthermore, in a public health emergency such as the current COVID-19 crisis, medical law and ethics change and shift the focus from the patient-centered model towards the public health-centered model. Under these particular circumstances, this fiction becomes striking, and it can no longer be swept under the rug. As health emergencies can happen anywhere, anytime, the patient prioritization in circumstances of limited resources should be accepted. Medical law and ethics should back away from strict commitment to placing paramount emphasis on the value of human life. It is time for medical law and ethics to leave taboo-related hypocritical attitudes, and venture to make a historic compromise. To do so, three principles should be met: subsidiarity, proportionality, and consensus and social proof.