Health reform implementation and policy formation

Authors

  • Telma Maria Gonçalves Menicucci Fundação João Pinheiro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902006000200008

Keywords:

Health Policy, Implementation, Political Support, Financing, Feedback Effects

Abstract

This paper analyses the process of implementation of the health system reform in the 1990s. The starting point is the proposition that policy implementation is endowed with autonomy and involves decisions, apart from being a process of adaptation to changes in context; implementation requires governmental decision and initiative and tools to make it effective, among them the availability of financial resources and organized political support, especially from those groups that benefit more directly. The process of implementation of the health system reform was not simply a concrete translation of decisions, but also a process of health policy design. In it, the effects not only of adjustments in the political and economic contexts and of the reconfiguration of the public agenda, but mainly the feedback effects of previous health policies could be felt. The latter translated themselves into the absence of political support, underfinancing and the incapacity to create a public network of services. They acted as constraints to the full implementation of the reform, as it was conceived by its formulators. Within these limits, crucial decisions were made, which redefined the reform, the most important being, on the one hand, the creation of a regulatory framework for private assistance that made the segmentation explicit, formally abandoning any universalistic intent, and, on the other hand, those related to financing, which still are an object of dispute. The result is the consolidation of a dualistic health system - public and private.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2006-08-01

Issue

Section

Original research articles

How to Cite

Menicucci, T. M. G. (2006). Health reform implementation and policy formation . Saúde E Sociedade, 15(2), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902006000200008