Brazil’s SUS Digital Call for Innovation: Institutional, Legal, and IP Implications for the HealthTech Ecosystem

Early start as Brazil’s Ministry of Health published Public Call No. 1/2026 (January 8), aimed at identifying innovative digital health solutions and potential partners aligned with the Brazilian Unified Health System Digital Program (SUS Digital) and the Agora Tem Especialistas program. At first glance, the instrument may appear to be a domestic, exploratory initiative, however a closer look reveals a more significant policy and regulatory signal.

Rather than a procurement process, grant program, or funding mechanism, the call functions as a structured market-sounding exercise. Its relevance lies not in immediate contracting opportunities, but in how it reshapes the relationship between the Government and the digital health innovation ecosystem. For international observers, technology providers, and investors, the call offers valuable insight into Brazil’s evolving institutional, legal, and intellectual property posture toward innovation in one of the world’s largest public healthcare systems.

A Shift in the Ministry of Health’s Role

One of the most notable implications of the call is the repositioning of the Ministry of Health from a traditional buyer of predefined solutions to an active orchestrator of the digital health ecosystem. Instead of issuing specifications and inviting bids, the Ministry seeks to understand what technologies, capabilities, and actors already exist in the market.

By mapping solutions ex ante, the public administration reduces informational asymmetry and gains a clearer picture of technological maturity, scalability, and alignment with national health priorities. This approach mirrors trends observed in other jurisdictions, where governments increasingly rely on pre-procurement engagement to de-risk innovation and inform future policy decisions.

Furthermore, the call also reallocates innovation risk. Technological and development risks remain largely with the market, while the State preserves flexibility and discretion. In return, the Ministry gains institutional learning: insights into feasible architectures, interoperability constraints, and realistic timelines for digital transformation within SUS.

This learning-oriented approach allows the public sector to evolve its digital health strategy based on real market intelligence rather than theoretical planning alone.

Legal Implications and the Nature of the Instrument

From a certain point of view, the call is defined as what it is not. It is neither a public tender nor a contract, nor does it provide funding or grants. Participation does not create enforceable rights, expectations of remuneration, or entitlement to future contracting.

This distinction is critical. In many jurisdictions, calls for proposals are often conflated with procurement or grant mechanisms. In this case, the Brazilian Ministry of Health deliberately avoids such classification, thereby sidestepping the rigid procedural constraints associated with public procurement law at this stage.

The absence of contractual commitment is not a flaw but a design feature. By maintaining administrative discretion, the Ministry retains the ability to choose among various legal instruments in the future such as innovation partnerships, cooperation agreements, public innovation procurement, or other models depending on strategic priorities and legal feasibility.

This flexibility reduces legal exposure for the public administration while preserving optionality for future engagement. For market participants, it underscores the importance of understanding the call as a positioning and qualification mechanism rather than a transactional opportunity.

Intellectual Property Implications as the Most Sensitive Aspect

Perhaps the most sensitive implication of the call concerns intellectual property. The document explicitly defers the treatment of IP ownership, licensing, exclusivity, and exploitation rights to future legal instruments, should any partnership or contract be pursued.

This approach grants the State maximum flexibility but introduces uncertainty for innovators. Importantly, IP is not ignored or dismissed, it is simply postponed. The practical effect is that no IP commitments arise at the call stage, but neither are any protections guaranteed.

For companies and startups, especially those with proprietary technologies, this creates a delicate balance. Participation requires disclosure of solutions at a conceptual and functional level, sufficient for evaluation but potentially exposing strategic information.

Technology providers must therefore adopt careful disclosure strategies: avoiding revelation of core know-how, ensuring that key inventions are protected through patent filings prior to submission, and preparing for future negotiations where IP allocation may become central. This aligns with best practices in public-sector innovation engagement but demands a high level of IP governance maturity from participants.

Implications for Companies and Startups

A common misconception is to view the call as a revenue-generating opportunity. In reality, its primary value lies in market positioning. Being selected and included in the Ministry’s database of qualified solutions signals institutional credibility and alignment with national health priorities.

For startups and scale-ups, this visibility can be strategically valuable, even in the absence of immediate contracts. It may influence future procurement decisions, partnerships with public institutions, and investor perception.

Participation also creates competitive asymmetry. Organizations that engage early gain insight into governmental priorities, evaluation criteria, and systemic constraints. They become known to policymakers and technical teams, potentially benefiting from first-mover advantages when future initiatives are launched.

Conversely, companies that remain outside this process risk institutional visibility, regardless of the technical merit of their solutions.

What This Call Ultimately Signals

Taken together, the call signals a maturation of Brazil’s approach to public-sector innovation in healthcare. It reflects a shift toward structured engagement, regulatory foresight, and strategic discretion, while placing greater responsibility on innovators to manage technological and intellectual property risks.

The call does not create immediate legal rights or financial opportunities. Instead, it reshapes the strategic and regulatory environment in which digital health innovation interacts with the Brazilian public sector. It also demonstrates Brazil’s intention to align with global best practices in innovation governance, while leveraging the scale and complexity of SUS as a platform for digital transformation.

In essence, this is not a procurement instrument, it is an infrastructure building mechanism. Those who understand and engage with it accordingly may be better positioned for the next phase of Brazil’s digital health evolution.