Mapping choices: parliamentary amendments and resource allocation to the Unified Health System (SUS) in times of mandatory spending

Abstract: This study contributes to the ongoing discussion of how legislators allocate amendments to the federal budget, focusing on their preferences concerning government public policies. The article aims to analyze the distribution of state caucus, committee, individual, and rapporteur amendments by allocation area, mainly focusing on health, and to examine the profiles (female, nonwhite, right-wing, health professional, pro-government bloc, parliamentary health caucus, centrist bloc) of representatives with a specific interest in this sector. Public and unrestricted data from the Treasury Portal and the Superior Electoral Court Repository were collected from 2015 to 2022 (the 55th and 56th Legislatures). The methodology adopted a descriptive analysis followed by a beta regression model. The findings indicate that health is the preferred sector for allocating amendments, exceeding the minimum threshold of 50% of individual amendments as mandated by federal regulation. Even without specific constitutional provisions, health emerges as the primary destination for resources from other parliamentary amendments. The most significant positive association with spending is belonging to the centrist bloc. The rationale behind this preference is strategically grounded in politics: allocating resources to health is an effective means to maximize electoral visibility, which is because health is a central concern for the electorate, the bureaucratic procedures involved in the release of funds, and the constant demand from municipalities for discretionary funds for this public policy, creating a favorable environment for political alliances with mayors.