Brazilian parliament approves compulsory test for future doctors
Three exams during training will determine whether new students can later register as doctors.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Brazilian parliament on Thursday approved a measure making professional registration for future doctors conditional on their exam performance. The requirement applies to students who began their training on or after 19 June 2026. The adopted text still has to go to the president for ratification.
With the vote in the Senate, parliament completed its consideration of the measure on 15 October. The Chamber of Deputies had also approved it earlier that day. The decision came shortly before the provisional measure was due to expire on 16 October. The new development is therefore parliamentary approval, rather than the original announcement of the exam. This is clear from reporting by [Agência Senado](https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/materias/2026/10/15/enamed-sera-obrigatorio-para-exercicio-da-medicina-aprova-senado).
The measure centres on the Exame Nacional de Avaliação da Formação Médica, abbreviated to Enamed. Students will be tested at the end of their second, fourth and sixth years of study. Their final result will be a weighted average, with the final test carrying the greatest weight. A national commission must set the precise weightings and minimum performance requirements. These implementation decisions will therefore help determine how high the entry threshold ultimately becomes.
The previous rules will continue to apply to students who were already enrolled before 19 June 2026. Doctors who already hold a qualification recognised in Brazil are also exempt, according to the parliamentary explanatory statement. The decision therefore does not mean a general reassessment of all practising doctors. This distinction matters to students who want to know which conditions will apply to their professional registration, reports [Agência Câmara](https://www.camara.leg.br/noticias/1311586-camara-aprova-mp-que-condiciona-registro-medico-a-exame-de-proficiencia).
According to the Senate, anyone who fails to reach the required standard will have the opportunity to resit the third test on a subsequent occasion. The average will then be recalculated. The measure thus attaches consequences to inadequate performance, while also providing for a resit. The tests cover knowledge and skills set out in national training requirements and take account of the needs of Brazil's public healthcare system, the SUS.
According to the Ministry of Health, the measure is intended to improve the quality of medical training and the safety of healthcare. These are policy objectives: parliamentary approval does not yet prove that healthcare will actually improve. The ministry presents the exam as a way to check whether graduates are sufficiently prepared for their profession, according to its [explanatory statement of 15 October](https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-ms/2026/outubro/aprovada-mp-que-torna-obrigatoria-a-avaliacao-dos-estudantes-de-medicina-durante-a-graduacao/).
The results are also intended to provide information about the courses themselves. According to the Chamber of Deputies, courses with inadequate results may be placed under supervision and face measures under education legislation. The decision therefore concerns both individual professional competence and the responsibility of educational institutions. For Dutch readers, this touches on a familiar policy question: how do you check whether a qualification provides sufficient preparation for patient care?
Public accounts of implementation differ. InfoMoney assigns responsibility for the exam to the federal medical council CFM, while the parliamentary explanatory statements name the education ministry. The CFM itself says it will be involved in devising and administering the final test. An exclusive implementation role for any one organisation is therefore not sufficiently established; the exam requirement and parliamentary approval are, however, confirmed by several sources.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Parliament approved the exam requirement on 15 October.
- The measure links professional registration for the specified group of students to minimum performance requirements.
- The adopted text still has to go to the president for ratification.
Left
Arguments Patients deserve good care, but training institutions must also bear responsibility for inadequate teaching. An exam threshold therefore requires support and accessible resits.
Values Equal opportunities, public responsibility and patient protection.
Consequences This approach fears that students will otherwise personally pay the price for shortcomings in their training.
Centre
Arguments A national standard can make professional registration more transparent, provided the test is reliable, responsibilities are clear and implementation is regularly evaluated.
Values Careful decision-making, legal certainty and verifiable quality.
Consequences The expected benefit is a better-founded decision on admission to the profession; unclear standards, by contrast, can cause disputes and delays.
Right
Arguments A medical qualification must demonstrate professional competence. Strict, predictable requirements and involvement of the profession can safeguard professional standards.
Values Expertise, individual responsibility and professional autonomy.
Consequences This approach emphasises protection against inadequate competence, but also warns against bureaucracy that unnecessarily obstructs capable graduates.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The vote on 15 October and the main exam conditions are confirmed by parliamentary sources and public news reporting. An overly categorical description of responsibility for implementation has been replaced by an explicit account of the differences between sources.
- confirmed Both chambers approved the measure on 15 October 2026; presidential ratification is still to follow. — The Senate describes the successive votes and referral to the president; the event falls within 48 hours. source
- confirmed The provisional measure was due to expire on 16 October. — Parliamentary reporting gives this expiry date. source
- confirmed There will be tests in the second, fourth and sixth years, with the final test carrying the greatest weight. — InfoMoney and the parliamentary explanatory statements describe the same structure. source
- confirmed A national commission sets the weightings and minimum performance requirements. — Explicitly included in the Chamber of Deputies' explanatory statement. source
- confirmed The registration requirement applies to students entering from 19 June 2026; earlier students and doctors whose qualifications are already recognised are exempt. — The parliamentary sources describe these transitional arrangements. source
- confirmed If the result is inadequate, the third test can be retaken and the average recalculated. — The Senate mentions this opportunity to resit. source
- confirmed The exam aligns with national training requirements and the needs of the SUS. — Both elements appear in the parliamentary explanatory statement. source
- confirmed Better training quality and safer healthcare are government objectives. — The ministry mentions these goals; this does not demonstrate actual effects. source
- confirmed Inadequate training results may lead to supervision and measures under education law. — Agência Câmara describes the assessment and supervision of courses. source
- uncertain The CFM will have exclusive responsibility for the entire exam. — InfoMoney phrases this broadly; parliamentary sources name the education ministry. The CFM itself refers to participation in the final test. The claim of exclusivity has been removed. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: The federal medical council CFM will become responsible for the exam.Now: The sources describe responsibility for implementation differently; the CFM reports that it will participate in devising and administering the final test. (The broad wording used by InfoMoney is not unambiguously supported by the primary sources.)
Editor's note
Parliamentary approval and the transitional arrangements have been confirmed. The sources differ on responsibility for implementation; that discrepancy is explicitly mentioned. The parliamentary pages could be opened directly; the other source texts were available through the search index, but opening them directly produced a technical error. The perspectives are general political considerations, not positions attributed to parties.Sources
- Enamed será obrigatório para exercício da medicina, aprova Senado — Agência Senado
- Câmara aprova MP que torna obrigatória a aprovação em exame para exercer a medicina — Agência Câmara
- Aprovada MP que torna obrigatória a avaliação dos estudantes de medicina durante a graduação — Ministério da Saúde
- CFM vai participar da avaliação final dos estudantes de medicina, decide o Congresso Nacional — Conselho Federal de Medicina
- Congresso aprova obrigatoriedade de aprovação no Enamed para exercer medicina — InfoMoney
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „brazilië artsen”
- De Telegraaf — „brazilië artsen”
- AD — „brazilië artsen”