Atuação do Conselho de Saúde do Distrito Federal na reforma da Atenção Primária à Saúde, de 2016 a 2018: estudo de caso

Danylo Santos Silva Vilaça,Danielle Soares Cavalcante,Luciana Melo De Moura

doi:10.1590/1413-81232018246.08962019

Danylo Santos Silva Vilaça, Danielle Soares Cavalcante + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018246.08962019

Copy DOI

Abstract

The Social Participation in Health has been consolidated in the Unified Health System through the efforts of the Municipal, State, National Councils and Health Conferences. The division into municipalities isconstitutionally prohibited in the Federal District and, therefore, there is a District Health Council and the Regional Health Councils. The aim was to describe the profile of the Federal District Health Council, analyzing its actions in Primary Health Care from 2016 to 2018. This was a qualitative case study, with documentary collection using the Iramuteq software. A statistical report of the Health Council Monitoring System and public minutes of the Federal District Health Council were collected, dispensing with approval by the Ethics Committee. The Federal District Health Council is in agreement to what was stated in Resolution 453/2012 of the National Health Council. We analyzed 43 minutes, generating two categories and five classes. It was concluded that the Federal District Health Council originated the reform of Primary Health Care during the study period, through the publication of a resolution that established guidelines for the reorganization of the primary care level.

Highlights

For a long time, Social Control has encompassed a principle of authoritarian and regressive inspiration, practiced by the Government in its relationship with society, assuming repressive characteristics, keeping society inits subservience[1,2]
The Social Participation in Health was institutionalized in the Unified Health System (SUS) through Law N. 8142 of 1990 which establishes, among other issues, that the Health Councils are permanent deliberative bodies[4], of which composition occurs between 50% of users, 25% of SUS workers and 25% of managers and service providers[5]
A large portion of the Municipal Health Councils formally established in the Midwest are monitored, which is not the case for the Federal District, .There were six health councils registered in SIACS

Summary

Introduction

Social Control has encompassed a principle of authoritarian and regressive inspiration, practiced by the Government in its relationship with society, assuming repressive characteristics, keeping society inits subservience[1,2]. Social Control, in a participatory manner and as a component of the Government’sinstitutionality, is a recent reality in the Brazilian historical process, with the 1980s being the theoretical landmark of its institutionalization, namely: constitutionally instituted and ruled by specific legislation and resolutions, of which attributionsare situated in the deliberation, co-management, monitoring, formulation and inspection of health policies at Municipal, State / District and Federal levels[3,4,5]. Once this history was rescued, we chose to use the term Social Participation in Health to refer to the democratic interventions existing in the Health Councils to replace the term social control in health. Both Councils and Health Conferences, adjusted to the principle of community participation, are public spaces for collective deliberation on the guidelines that must guide the structuring and management of SUS7

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion