Industry wants to cut costs with health plans and SUS only for the poor

São Paulo — Based on the raft of proposals presented this week to presidential candidates, the industry is arguing that subsidies to health plans are at the heart of federal government policies and that the SUS have been scaled back, to serve only the poorest. In the agenda of the National Federation of Industry – click over here Access – This priority is well explained in the description of private health companies’ expenditures. In 2021, more than R$60 billion was spent with workers’ health plans, an estimate based on the lowest value of collective agreements.

The document cites a study by the Social Service for Industry (Sesi), which cites nearly 11 million customers for plans held by the sector. and that health plans account for an average of 13% of salaries.

“An appropriate cost to companies in general, which tends to be of particular interest in the case of industry, due to their significant participation in private healthcare plans,” says an excerpt from the document. The same survey also showed that cost was cited by 61% of companies as the main reason for not offering such a benefit to their workers.

Health plans instead of SUS

Professor at the University of São Paulo School of Medicine (USP) and specialist in private health, Mario Schaeffer, sees CNI “elevating private plans to the category of ‘system’. It must therefore organize itself the complementary health market. And that” envisions the action of the state, through the SUS, To help particularly low-income families.

This is because although the share of personnel expenses in the total cost of production is lower than that of other items – raw materials, energy, and taxes – health plans severely impact the industrial process. More with annual adjustments, above inflation. “This cost is subtracted from wages and incorporated into the price of the goods produced. The consumer pays the bill indirectly,” he says on his blog. Politics and healthon the newspaper’s website S.Paulo State.

“Bigger, global, and quality SUS will provide the resources for the industry to improve the wages it pays, lower the prices of the products it makes, increase consumption as a whole, and boost the economy. Incredibly, however, SUS is off the CNI radar,” Schaefer says.

In this perspective of the centralization of private health, with more incentives to serve entrepreneurs, SUS, for the poor, will only be “used” for ultimately “synergies” or “partnerships.” For example, in “Integration of SUS Primary Care, Complementary Health and Worker Health Initiatives Developed by Companies”.

Bolsonaro instructions

Among the “innovations” on the new system that CNI proposed to presidential candidates, Schaefer highlighted the expansion of the use of telemedicine. As well as sharing clinical patient data across companies, as well as outcome-based payments for doctors and hospitals. And no more in the actions that are made.

He believes that “if the first part of the proposed reform, which will consist of reducing the costs of private health firms, is fulfilled, it is assumed that the new model will be significantly supported by public resources.”

Schaeffer also criticizes the fact that industrialists ignore the social determinants of the emergence of diseases that cause absenteeism. And also the present – when the worker is present, but cannot be as productive as before. In a solution that goes beyond the situation backwards, such as adopting the use of coal, they are only advocating ‘lifestyle change’.

He comments: “It is no coincidence that one of the CNI’s proposals is to implement the policy of the Bolsonaro government: ‘Combating non-communicable diseases and disorders in Brazil (2021-2030).'” A plan by the way excludes regulation of the practices and activities of industries that sell products harmful to health and the environment. This is a case Foods high in sodium, sugar, fats, ultra-processed products, pesticides, alcohol, and tobacco.“At best, the simplification of health promotion and disease prevention indicates little or no contact with science.”