Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-15T13:31:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 UEFS - Dissertacao - Marcia Rosa.pdf: 1933540 bytes, checksum: db8809df1eeadbe0a91103b9d7008417 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-03-17 / The object of this paper was the process of financial management that to be in focus on the flow of financial resources since the origin as far as the immediate results of health activities. The objective, here, was to analyze municipal management of financial resources of Unified National Health System (SUS). This paper is a single study case that obtained in the documental analyses the evidence sources. The date financial were collected and analyzed through of the four table s proposal by National Health Accounts (NHA) and compared with the documental date. The characteristics of the service provider and of the activities were detailed carefully because of the methodology powerful with high the date separation. The result of research showed profile of date municipal resource: the federal government contributed to 82% of incomes, after municipality contributed to 17%, and, less participation the state that contributed to 1% of incomes. To point the Total Income of R$ 608,5 per capita and the pantry per capita of the 16 unities of the PSF (Family Health Program) vary from R$ 465,4 to R$ 62,3 per capita/unity/year. The Public Pantry with Health (GPS) per capita was R$ 261/hab/year. The PIB per cent that corresponded GPS was 4,4%. The proportion of incomes allocated to the hospitals was 47%, and ambulatory unities 44% showing a different profile of the another municipalities studied. The activities carried by Family Health Program Unities in 2005 were predominant Actions executed by nurse profession (38%); Actions basic medicines (28%) and Actions basic dentist (19%). Conclusion: a low capacity of collection taxes in 2005 year and co-financial insufficient of State. About health financial management of municipal system realized a planning process occurring in parallel; little coincide of LOA and PMS aims; a mask budget execution. The health responsibilities were carried partial proper sub-financial of three government sphere and the financing the federal government totally linked, taking the municipally co-finance what was prioritized by Union, and however, do not remain self municipal incomes to invest in local priorities. / O objeto deste estudo ? o processo de gest?o financeira focado no fluxo dos recursos desde a sua origem at? os resultados mais imediatos, as atividades de sa?de. O objetivo, aqui, ? analisar a gest?o municipal dos recursos financeiros do Sistema ?nico de Sa?de. Trata-se de um estudo de caso ?nico, que teve na an?lise documental a principal fonte de evid?ncias. Os dados financeiros foram coletados e analisados atrav?s de quatro tabelas propostas pelo National Helth Acounts (NHA) e comparados com as fontes documentais. As caracter?sticas dos provedores de servi?os e das atividades foram detalhadas ami?de devido ? potencializa??o da metodologia com a elevada desagrega??o dos dados. O resultado da pesquisa mostrou o perfil das fontes de recursos municipais: o governo federal contribuiu com 82% das receitas, seguido do munic?pio (17%) e, com a menor participa??o, o Estado (1%). Destaca-se a Receita Total de R$ 608,5 per capita; e os gastos per capita das 16 unidades do PSF variaram de R$ 465,4 a R$ 62,3 per capita/unidade/ano. O Gasto P?blico com Sa?de (GPS) per capita foi R$ 261/hab./ano. O porcentual do PIB que correspondeu ao GPS foi 4,4%. A propor??o de recursos alocados para os hospitais foi 47% e para as unidades ambulatoriais 44%, revelando um perfil diferenciado de outros munic?pios j? estudados. As atividades realizadas pelas Unidades de Sa?de da Fam?lia em 2005 foram redominantemente A??es executadas por profissionais de enfermagem (38%); A??es m?dicas b?sicas (28%) e A??es b?sicas em odontologia (19%). Concluiu-se que houve uma baixa capacidade de arrecada??o de impostos no ano de 2005 e um co-financiamento irris?rio do estado. Sobre a gest?o financeira da sa?de do sistema municipal percebeu-se: processos de planejamento ocorrendo paralelamente; pouca coincid?ncia dos objetivos da LOA e PMS; e um mascaramento da execu??o or?ament?ria. As responsabilidades sanit?rias foram parcialmente cumpridas devido ao sub-financiamento das tr?s esferas de governo e ao financiamento do governo federal totalmente vinculado, levando ao munic?pio co-financiar o que foi priorizado pela Uni?o e, por conseguinte, n?o sobrou recursos pr?prios para investir nas prioridades locais.