An Analysis of the IFMSA Brazil Non-Discriminatory Access to Health Program in 2019

An Analysis of the IFMSA Brazil Non-Discriminatory Access to Health Program in 2019

Author: Juliana Vieira Saraiva

Keywords: minority health, universal access to health, promotion of human rights.

The Unified Health System (SUS) is one of the greatest achievements of the Brazilian population in terms of health. Based on the principles of Universality, Integrality, and Equity, it is offering to carry out health actions for all, guaranteeing access in a non-discriminatory way [1,2]. In this perspective, it is essential to understand that prejudice, discrimination and structural oppression in many cases limit the populations that experience such problems to have their right to quality health guaranteed [3,4]. Therefore, the IFMSA Brazil’s “Non-discriminatory Access to Health” Program proposes to hold debates and encourage actions in the most diverse areas, such as health of indigenous populations, health of quilombola populations, homeless people, racism, people with special needs, illness, neglected or suffering from social exclusion and other topics that cover the lack of access to health by specific groups [5,6]. During the year, 96 Activity Submission Forms (FISA) were received, with subjects related to Refugee Health, Health of the Homeless, Blacks’ Health, Women’s Health, Elderly Health, Men’s Health, Women’s Health LGBTQIA+ population, Health of the population deprived of liberty and people with special needs. There were activities involving the program distributed across all the regions. Amongst the partnerships carried out to carry out the activities, we highlight universities, academic leagues, health units, NGOs, institutions, research projects, and extensions, among others. The target audience was composed of: population in a situation of socio-economic vulnerability (such as refugees and population on the street), drug addicts, the elderly, women, children, health professionals, academics, university students, among others. The main evaluation methods used include, mainly, questionnaires, feedback, reports and interactive dynamics [4]. It is worth mentioning the Multicentric Calls initiatives carried out during 2019, such as the Heart for the Homeless Project, which provided tracking of homeless people with Systemic Arterial Hypertension (SAH), as well as health promotion and disease prevention; the Esperanza Project, which consisted of actions aimed at the health of the refugee and immigrant population (such as Haitians and Venezuelans) and that of the Health of the Black Population, which was attended by committees from all regions and to provide a broad debate on racism and its consequences. There was a relevant impact on this program, due to a large number of topics covered, diversity of the target population, populations reached in a satisfactory manner and, above all, methods of impact assessment being put into practice. Allied to this, the partnerships established in the most diverse forms and in the majority of the actions raise greater effectiveness, with greater impact and coverage of the beneficiary population. However, we cannot fail to deny that there is still an underutilization of this with regard to the realization of the actions carried out, in which a large number of submissions and a low contingent of completed activities are observed. This brings us an alert to think about strategies that can intervene in this problem and increase the impact of the actions carried out in the program.

References:

1. Brazil. Law No. 8,080 of September 19, 1990. Provides for the conditions for the promotion, health protection, and recovery, the organization and functioning of services correspondents and makes other arrangements. Official Gazette 1990; 20 Sep.
2. Elias N, Scotson JL. The established and the outsiders: sociology of power relations at from a small community. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar; 2000.
3. Krieger N. Discrimination and health. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I, editors. Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 36-75.
4. Gouveia GC, Souza WV, Luna CF, Souza-Júnior PR, Szwarcwald CL. Health care users’ satisfaction in Brazil, 2003. Cad Saude Publica 2005; 21 (Suppl.): 109-118.
5. Pascoe EA, Smart Richman L. Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2009; 135 (4): 531-554.
6. Casagrande SS, Gary TL, LaVeist TA, Gaskin DJ, Cooper LA. Perceived discrimination and adherence to medical care in a racially integrated community. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 (3): 389-395.