Este trabalho discute a validade da Resolução Ministerial n° 1.236, do Conselho Nacional de Previdência Social, que dispõe sobre padrões de freqüência, gravidade e custo no cálculo do Fator Acidentário Previdenciário. Esse fator multiplicará alíquotas de impostos sobre riscos decorrentes do trabalho, podendo reduzir em até 50% o imposto devido por empresas que aplicarem controles coletivos eficientes na sua prevenção. Analisa-se a consistência do método adotado para selecionar os grupos de morbidade destinados a construir os vetores de freqüência, gravidade e custo, bem como a validade da aplicação dos conceitos epidemiológicos à produção econômica geradora da morbidade. Contrapõem-se as listas tradicionais de morbidade aos critérios epidemiológicos móveis, como alternativas distintas que têm sido adotadas para resolução de conflitos sobre a existência de nexo causal entre doenças, lesões, acidentes e os modos de produção. Apoiam-se os grupos de riscos epidemiológicos móveis que correspondam às doenças e lesões cujo risco epidemiológico, medido por um intervalo de confiança de 99%, esteja acima do valor unitário. Conclui-se que o método proposto para determinação do Fator multiplicador atende aos requisitos epidemiológicos de definição de cálculo de riscos e validade, uma vez que é assegurada sua revisão periódica para questões de sensibilidade e especificidade. Alerta-se que não se deve confiar unicamente nos métodos como instrumentos unilaterais de ação social para avaliação, controle e prevenção dos males associados ao trabalho nas modalidades de produção do nosso desenvolvimento. Os métodos são instrumentos que devem ser considerados na tomada de decisão e na ação política que se deseja imprimir.
(INSS). This could benefit the enterprises to avenge fines and legal suits related to compensation demands from their own workers. This interest was based on cases in which the INSS expert physicians would recognize causal links between workers' diseases and accidents and their jobs, even in the absence of legal communication by the companies in officially filled paperwork like the Work Accidents Report (CAT). They would act in favor of the companies' interest to deny rights to maintain the job contract upon returning from the sick leaves, to avoid additional taxes for an increase in the number of sick workers and even legal suits due the compensations of work-related accidents and diseases. The CFM gave publicity to the proposed ruling advice because they 'think' (it was a suggestion for a directive) that the physicians working at the companies may write to the INSS informing that 'workers' personal health data files' may be used to deny causal links between the work and the compensations claims that were recognized as work-related. They did not 'think' that this disclosure of individual data would harm the workers' rights to privacy, intimacy or it could be an ethics abuse (CMF, 2017B). The same CFM 'thinks' that the workers' health data files are, from 2017 on, 'free to flow' and go to institutional administrative paperworks independently of the consent written by the patients. One should think twice about this CFM new 'thought'. In recent years, much of their thoughts represent initiatives of elected physicians representatives who targeted population, workers and patient's rights. It is not by mere chance that the Brazilian CFM-the physicians' national board-has been the early supporter to Senators and Federal House Representatives that enacted the 2016 coup d'état to put the illegitimate president Temer in power with the support of the judiciary system. They are now backing this attack against workers privacy rights on their personal data files that physicians should keep away from disclosure under ethical protection even under judge's subpoenas. This ruling advice came from the technical group under the number 3/2017 is pretty much welcome by trust representatives that decided not to abide by the legal
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.