Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saúde: Brasil na Vanguarda: The incorporation of Health Technologies: Brazil at the forefront
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years after the enactment of the Lei Orgânica da Saude1 [Health Organic Law],which created the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), Brazil changes it with the enactmentof Law No. 12,401/112, the Lei da Integralidade do SUS [SUS Integrality Law]. It provides fortherapeutic care and the incorporation of health technology. Despite the delay in defining howthe SUS would update itself, the enactment of this law occurred in an important time for thecountry, which is rapidly growing and in a better position of strength to move toward evidencebased technological updates.The law establishes that the incorporation, exclusion or change of medications, products andprocedures, as well as the development or change of clinical protocols and therapeutic guidelines,should be based on reports taking into account scientific evidence concerning the efficiency,accuracy, effectiveness and safety of medications, products or procedures. Additionally, it shouldcontain a comparative economic evaluation of the benefits and costs of new technology inrelation to already implemented technology, or in relation to home care, outpatient or hospitalcare, when appropriate2. These changes place Brazil among a select group of countries that havealready adopted this model, such as England, Canada, Spain, Scotland, and Australia.The standards that are now contained in the federal law have always been objects of discussionin hospitals within the pharmacy and therapeutic committees, but it is known that there is greatdifficulty in putting these standards into practice, which has been a challenge for pharmacists.The evaluation and recommendation to incorporate new technologies within the SUS isalso defined by a committee, the National Committee of Technology Incorporation in the SUS(CONITEC), created by the SUS Integrality Law. CONITEC is coordinated by the Departmentof Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) and also has the responsibility of updatingthe National List of Essential Medication (RENAME).The role of CONITEC’s Executive Secretariat, which is exercised by the Department of Managementand Incorporation of SCTIR, is to manage and coordinate CONITEC’s activities as well as to providereports on technology while considering scientific evidence, containing an economic assessment and theimpact of technologies within the SUS. To ensure that society has access to this decision-making process,these reports will be freely accessible to stakeholders via the Brazilian Ministry of Health website3.The availability to society of conclusive reports concerning CONITEC’s decisions willprovide transparency for the process and also guide decision-making on the part of SUSmanagers and also for public and private health institutions. Additionally, the government’sjudiciary branch can use these reports to support its decisions concerning related processes3.This entire process is based on very recent science in Brazil, but science that has spread very rapidly, especially in hospitals, which is the assessment of health technologies (ATS). Suchscience is defined by the Ministry of Health as a “continuous process of the analysis and synthesisof benefits for healthcare, and the economic and social consequences of the employment oftechnologies, considering aspects such as safety, accuracy, efficacy, effectiveness, costs, costeffectiveness and also equity, as well as the ethical, cultural and environmental impacts involvedin its use.”4The ATS’ objective is to support decision-making concerning the incorporation andmonitoring of technology, whether within the scope of each health institution or within the
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".