MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229021732 · doi:10.30968/rbfhss.2022.131.0769

Medicines regulation, pricing and reimbursement in Brazil

2022· article· en· W4229021732 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Farmácia Hospitalar e Serviços de Saúde · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health in Brazil
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersUniversidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná
KeywordsReimbursementBusinessProcurementPublic economicsEnforcementHealth careFinanceEconomicsMarketingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brazil is an upper-middle-income country with a high human development index (HDI) of 0.765 (2019). The Unique Health System (SUS) is a universal, decentralised system, free at point-of-care, although 27% of Brazilians have voluntary supplementary health insurance. Medicines are provided free-of-charge through the SUS, though there are a few exceptions where co-payment is required. Around 87% of the country’s expenditure with medicines and medical devices corresponds to out-of-pocket, highlighting the importance of price regulation. Marketing authorisation and maximum price approval are mandatory market entry requirements for medicines. Pricing policies include maximum price approval, regulation of mark-ups, tax exemption, annual price adjustment and a mandatory discount for government procurement and enforcement mechanisms. The pricing of new drugs considers the patent status and added therapeutic benefit. It is a combination of health technology assessment and external or internal reference pricing, while drugs with active ingredients in the market follow internal reference pricing. The maximum price of generics must be up to 65% of the reference’s price. The maximum approved prices and public procurement prices are publicly available. Brazil has a value-based decision-making process for incorporating medicines and other technologies at the SUS. Current areas of work include horizon scanning, participation of patients in decision-making and re-assessment of technologies. As a decentralised system, medicines are procured by the Ministry of Health, states and municipalities, according to their level of responsibility. Pricing and reimbursement policies, including a consolidated generics policy, have been important in promoting transparency, predictability, and price stability, in turn contributing to cost-containment and access. Ongoing challenges include high rates of judicialisation, medicines with excessive prices not commensurate with their clinical benefits, no provision for pricing review, problems related to governance and politics. To address these challenges, the authors have three main recommendations. First: improving regulatory governance, second: incentivising the development and promoting access to medicines with stronger evidence, added clinical benefit and fair prices, and third: increasing awareness among stakeholders, avoiding judicialisation and minimising its impact; contributing to closing the gap between innovation and access to medicines.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it