IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v15y2024i1p87-104_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Exceptions: Why Does the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) Exempts RIA and Ex Post Reviews?

Author

Listed:
  • Salinas, Natasha Schmitt Caccia
  • Gomes, Lucas Thevenard

Abstract

In this article, we examine the evolving landscape of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) decisions made by the National Health Regulatory Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária [Anvisa]), a prominent federal agency leading RIA implementation in Brazil. We quantify Anvisa’s RIA usage rates, exploring the influence of emergency and other justifications for RIA exemptions both pre and post the enactment of detailed procedural requirements in a recent Presidential Order No. 10,411/2020. Our quantitative analysis shows a sharp decline in RIA usage after Presidential Order No. 10,411/2020 came into force in April 2021, as well as a diversification of the justifications given in decisions not to use RIA (exception decisions). This effect is present even if we take into consideration a large proportion of exception decisions tied to Anvisa’s regulatory stock review and to urgent measures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we conduct a qualitative analysis of exception decisions due to emergency, post-Presidential Order. We find that Anvisa failed to provide compelling justifications for exempting RIA in emergency regulations in several cases and avoids ex post reviews when RIAs are waived due to emergencies. We conclude the article with recommendations to enhance the scrutiny and transparency of Anvisa’s exception decisions to conduct RIA.

Suggested Citation

  • Salinas, Natasha Schmitt Caccia & Gomes, Lucas Thevenard, 2024. "Open Exceptions: Why Does the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) Exempts RIA and Ex Post Reviews?," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 87-104, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:87-104_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588824000137/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:87-104_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.