Despite the obligation to provide CAR-T therapies imposed by the Health Insurance Plans Law, health insurance providers continue to deny coverage
The judicialization of healthcare has been growing in Brazil, both in the public and private (supplementary) healthcare sectors.
In supplementary healthcare, judicialization plays an important role due to the frequent denial of coverage for certain therapies or treatments by health insurance providers. Particularly in the oncology field, this is even more evident with the emergence of advanced therapies such as CAR-T (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy).
Coverage denials have become so common that patients are left with no alternative but to resort to the Judiciary Branch, which has been duly guided by the provisions of Law # 9,656, of June 3, 1998 (“Health Insurance Plans Law”), to ensure access to the prescribed treatment.
CAR-T therapy represents an innovative approach to cancer treatment. It involves the genetic modification of the patient’s own T-cells — which play a key role in immune defense —, so that they begin to recognize and attack tumor cells.
CAR-T therapies are the result of more than 60 years of research and progress in immunotherapy and biotechnology. In Brazil, several CAR-T therapies, which are classified by the Brazilian FDA (Anvisa) as a special category of novel drugs[1], have already undergone a rigorous approval and registration process[2] former to its launch and availability in the Brazilian market.
It is well known that investigational drugs are those that may only be supplied to patients under certain conditions, which include participation in clinical trials prior to registration with Anvisa, or through specific programs such as compassionate use or expanded access. These restrictions aim to ensure safe access to promising treatments still under development.
Therefore, the fact that CAR-T therapies (already registered with Anvisa) are the result of research and technological development should not be confused with an investigational nature.
Although many advanced therapies have been approved by Anvisa for years in Brazil, health insurance providers continue to deny coverage, arguing that such drugs are (i) investigational, (ii) high-cost, or (iii) not listed in the Brazilian National Supplementary Health Agency’s (ANS ) mandatory coverage list.
As mentioned above, the first argument is invalidated by the fact that these therapies are registered with Anvisa. The second argument - high cost - is not itself sufficient to justify denial of coverage. This is because the economic premise of health insurance is precisely to distribute risks among a pool of beneficiaries, making high-cost treatments accessible to individuals who have a medical prescription and contractual coverage.
Regarding the third point, in 2023, ANS issued Technical Note No. 03/2023/GCITS/GGRAS/DIRAD-DIPRO/DIPRO, stating that advanced therapy products would not fall under the concept of “medication” in article 12, II, “d” of the Health Insurance Plans Law or article 8, III, of ANS Normative Resolution # 465/2021.
Therefore, according to ANS — a position widely criticized for contradicting Anvisa’s rules, according to which these products classify as special medicine already approved and registered in Brazil —, the inclusion of advanced therapies in the mandatory coverage list would require a separate evaluation process within the ANS.
For health insurance plans that include coverage for hospital care, article 12, II, “d”[3], of the Law mandates coverage of medications administered during hospitalization as prescribed by the attending physician.
This provision is reinforced by article 8, III[4], of ANS Normative Resolution # 465/2021, which establishes the insurer’s obligation to cover medications registered with Anvisa, even if not explicitly listed in the coverage list, when they are: (i) used in procedures with mandatory coverage (for plans without hospital care[GM1] [SA2] ) or (ii) administered during hospitalization (for plans that include hospital care), which is the case for advanced therapies.
Furthermore, the Health Insurance Plans Law clearly intends to provide broad coverage for antineoplastic (oncological) treatments. The Law mandates the coverage of such treatments as a minimum requirement for both outpatient (art. 12, I, “c”[5]) and hospital plans (art. 12, II, “g”[6]).
These are not the only legal grounds supporting the obligation to cover CAR-T therapies. With the legislative amendment introduced by Law # 14,454/2022, paragraph 13 was added to article 10 of Law # 9,656/1998, which expressly obliges health insurers to cover procedures or treatments not listed as mandatory by the ANS list, whenever prescribed by a physician and meeting the following criteria: (i) proven efficacy based on scientific evidence and a therapeutic plan, or (ii) recommendation by the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies to the Unified Health System (Conitec) or by a renowned international body, provided that the recommendation is also valid for their own citizens.
In this context, ANS’ interpretation that advanced therapies would need to undergo a special process to be included in the coverage list unlawfully restricts a legal guarantee of access, harming beneficiaries entitled to the treatment — a situation made even worse when it comes to antineoplastic advanced therapies, given the dual legal basis ensuring their coverage.
An analysis of legal cases involving CAR-T therapy shows that the Judiciary Branch has been acting in a technical and careful manner, ensuring the effectiveness of the right to health whenever objective requirements are met, which prevents arbitrary decisions and reinforces the technical nature of judicial interventions.
In decisions ordering health insurers to provide the advanced therapy, courts consider the existence of a valid registration with Anvisa for the therapy, which dismisses any claim of investigational status and confirms its regular approval for the Brazilian market.
The Judiciary also requires a medical prescription and a clinical report attesting to the suitability of the therapy for the individual case, especially when no effective alternative exists — which is often the case for rare or treatment-resistant conditions. This shows the Judiciary’s diligence in ensuring that such orders are only issued in justified cases[7].
Additionally, the Technical Support Units of the Judiciary (NatJus) have issued favorable opinions regarding CAR-T therapy in many cases, highlighting its proven efficacy supported by scientific evidence[8].
Another factor considered by the courts is the approval of CAR-T therapy by other regulatory agencies, such as the U.S.’ FDA, which approved the first CAR-T therapy after decades of research showing positive results[9].
Finally, Brazilian courts also recognize that denial of coverage by insurers for drugs registered with Anvisa — when no therapeutic alternatives are available — constitutes a contract breach and places the consumer at a severe disadvantage, in violation of the Consumer Protection Code[10].
All these judicial criteria demonstrate that favorable decisions for the supply of CAR-T therapies are not arbitrary, but rather a direct result of legal, technical, and constitutional analysis — particularly the fundamental rights to life and health.
As demonstrated, considering the provisions of Law # 14,454/2022 — especially the clear legislative intent to ensure broad coverage for antineoplastic/oncological treatments (art. 12, I, “c” and II, “g”) — and article 12, II, “d”, which mandates coverage of medications administered during hospitalization, health insurers are legally obligated to provide registered CAR-T therapies prescribed by physicians, regardless of whether they are specifically included in the ANS mandatory coverage list.
Far from being merely voluntarist or subjective decisions, the Judiciary Branch has issued increasingly technical and responsible rulings, ensuring more effective healthcare for citizens and greater predictability for insurers.
Thus, insurers must acknowledge that CAR-T therapies are here to stay, and it is not their prerogative to decide whether or not to provide coverage when such an obligation arises directly of the Health Insurance Plans Law.
To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
Previous Post
There is no previous post
Back to all postsNext Post
There is no next post
Back to all postsRegister your email and receive our updates
