Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of the properties and impacts of health technologies and interventions. In this article, we presented a discussion of HTA and its evolution in Brazil, as well as a description of secondary data sources available in Brazil with potential applications to generate evidence for HTA and policy decisions. Furthermore, we highlighted record linkage, ongoing record linkage initiatives in Brazil, and the main linkage tools developed and/or used in Brazilian data. Finally, we discussed the challenges and opportunities of using secondary data for research in the Brazilian context. In conclusion, we emphasized the availability of high quality data and an open, modern attitude toward the use of data for research and policy. This is supported by a rigorous but enabling legal framework that will allow the conduct of large-scale observational studies to evaluate clinical, economical, and social impacts of health technologies and social policies.
INTRODUCTION:Since the creation of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Brazilian Health System (CONITEC), a new phase started in the public Brazilian Health System (SUS): a continuous updating of the system based on Health Technology Assessment (HTA). CONITEC was created by federal law in 2012 and is responsible for advising the Ministry of Health regarding the incorporation or disinvestment of health technologies. The whole process involves a strong interaction with society, including the composition of the committee, which has the participation of the National Health Council. The objective of this study was to describe the results of CONITEC in five years of operation.METHODS:This is a retrospective descriptive study, based on information from the database (period 2012–2016) and CONITEC's website.RESULTS:Since 2012, CONITEC assessed 541 technologies, including drugs (360), health products (71) and procedures (110); 303 assessment requests came from SUS agencies and institutions and the other 238 requests from pharmaceutical companies, medical societies, patient associations and the judiciary bodies. In this period, there were 190 public consultations, during which more than 24,000 feedback from society were received. The average time for evaluation was 146 days. The committee recommended the incorporation of 186 technologies into SUS, the disinvestment of 43 and was unfavorable to the incorporation of 88, generating a budgetary impact of approximately BRL2.5 billion (USD764 million).CONCLUSIONS:From 2012–2016, CONITEC tripled the average annual incorporation of new technologies compared to the period 2006–2011. In this process, it was necessary to assess efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of technologies, generating positive results for the expansion of access, health gains for patients and sustainability for the system. It should be considered that the use of evidence for decision making strengthens transparency in public management and the development of active processes of information, communication and social participation.
INTRODUCTION:In Brazil, the pharmaceutical sector has requested an individual incorporation in the Brazilian public health system (SUS) for each new drug for multiple sclerosis that receives sanitary authorization for marketing. Horizon Scanning within Brazilian Ministry of Health has played a key role in the recommendations made by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). Horizon Scanning seeks to predict which technologies have potential to impact health care in SUS, before their formal request. This study aims to present the impact of horizon scanning in two assessments made by CONITEC on drugs to treat Multiple Sclerosis.METHODS:Grey literature was searched to find new and emerging drugs for multiple sclerosis treatment. Regulatory agencies were also searched: European Medicines Agency (EMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Brazilian Regulation and Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa). A pre-defined standardized form was used. Information extracted about each drug was identified as: drugs name, mechanism of action, indication, administration route, finished phases of clinical trial and registration in other countries.RESULTS:In 2014, horizon scanning identified seven drugs while CONITEC was assessing Fingolimod for multiple sclerosis. In this case, the drug's administration route was a differential, as only three new drugs identified were also orally administrated. Thus, Fingolimod received a positive recommendation for incorporation. In 2016, horizon scanning identified fourteen drugs while Teriflunomide was under assessment. At this moment, the orally administrated Fingolimod was already available and it was identified other eight new drugs with the same route. Therefore, the initial recommendation was against its incorporation.CONCLUSIONS:Horizon scanning has proved to be of major importance for assisting recommendation-making process of the committee. In the two cases presented, horizon scanning information could predict which technologies were being developed and could be registered in Brazil. These new technologies had influenced the recommendations made by CONITEC's members. As a result, a horizon scanning section in all CONITEC's reports became mandatory.
INTRODUCTION:The increase of litigation in Brazil on the right to health, and the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) targets of litigation, are phenomena that generate discussions both in the judiciary, and among researchers and managers of health. The lawsuits are based on the integrality that includes the right to any health technology. Our aim was to gather information on the use of scientific evidence by judges and other law professionals to support their decisions in lawsuits involving health care in Brazil.METHODS:A narrative review by literature search using key terms of legalization in specific databases was conducted.RESULTS:Twenty-five studies showed litigation matters relating to health care which were focused on legal claims about drugs. In general, law operators used the scientific evidences in a limited way when making decisions, by considering the medical report and medication label indications and disregarding therapeutic alternatives contemplated in the SUS list. The access to health technologies, by litigation, reveals that the gap between scientific knowledge and legal practice are similar to those found between science and decision-making in the formulation and implementation of health policies. The Health Technology Assessment studies have high potential for use by the judiciary as a reference source to support technical and scientific decisions in lawsuits on health care.CONCLUSIONS:For the judiciary to ensure not only access to health technologies, but also the efficacy and safety of technologies to system users, their decisions must be substantiated by scientific evidence. The National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC) in SUS has established actions in conjunction with law operators and society, such as a communication using e-mail, aiding the decision for the injunction and elaboration of technical reports and a policy brief, with the intention that the decisions are taken with the greatest possible knowledge about technologies provided by SUS, and based on scientific evidence.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.