In 2008 the state of Minas Gerais created the "Program Rede Farmácia de Minas" (RFM),

Background: Zika virus is a newly emerging infection, associated with increasingly large outbreaks especially in tropical countries such as Brazil. A future Zika vaccine can contribute to decreasing the number of cases and associated complications. Information about consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical Zika vaccine can help price setting discussions in the future in Brazil, starting with the private market. Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted among residents of Minas Gerais, Brazil, regarding their WTP for a hypothetical Zika Vaccine. The mean effective protection was 80%, with the possibility of some local and systemic sideeffects. Results: 517 people were interviewed. However, 30 would not be vaccinated even if the vaccine was free. Most of the resultant interviewees (489) were female (58.2%), had completed high school (49.7%), were employed (71.2%), had private health insurance (52.7%) and did not have Zika (96.9%). The median individual maximum willingness to pay for this hypothetical Zika vaccine (one dose) was US$31.34 (BRL100.00). Conclusion: Such discussions can contribute to decision-making about prices once a Zika vaccine becomes available in Brazil alongside other ongoing programmes to control the virus.

Introduction: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high-and middle-income countries. Methods: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior level co-authors including key South American markets. Afterall, involved senior level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results: 25 studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%), and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusion: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences and practices across countries is crucial to guide high-and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.