Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine prohibits financial advantages that interfere with the hiring of physicians or the choice of healthcare services
The Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine (“CFM”) published, on June 15, 2026, CFM Resolution No. 2,460/2026, which prohibits any form of payment, receipt, or granting of an economic advantages as a condition for hiring physicians or for referring healthcare services. The rule enters into force on the date of its publication and reinforces an essential principle of medical ethics, according to which the relationship between physician and patient must be guided exclusively by clinical interest, without financial interference capable of distorting healthcare decisions or compromising the professional’s independence and technical autonomy.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of reports of physicians being required to return part of their compensation as a condition for obtaining or keeping a position, or to pay percentages of their shifts to groups that control access to the labor market. The rapporteur of the rule, federal councilor Francisco Eduardo Cardoso Alves, emphasized the seriousness of the issue by stating that there are groups demanding 15% to 30% of a physician’s compensation in exchange for access to shifts.
In practice, the resolution prohibits physicians from demanding, offering, paying, receiving, or accepting any amount or benefit, whether direct or indirect, that may influence the hiring, admission, or maintenance of employment or professional relationships, regardless of the contractual model adopted. The prohibition also extends to the recommendation or referral of healthcare services, tests, procedures, reports, audits, and expert examinations, meaning that receiving any advantage to refer a particular laboratory or clinic, or paying to secure a shift schedule, now constitutes an ethical violation subject to accountability before the professional oversight system of medicine.
The rule also targets practices that, although known in the sector, are often presented with a veneer of formality to disguise their true nature. Participating in, intermediating, facilitating, or benefiting from arrangements that make professional relationships or clinical decisions conditional upon any financial compensation likewise constitutes an ethical violation, even if such compensation is presented as an administrative fee, commission, bonus, award, cashback, contribution to a group or digital platform, or any other designation that conceals its true purpose. The resolution makes clear that the legal form adopted does not remove ethical liability, covering cooperatives, intermediary companies, digital platforms, and any other institutional arrangements used to enable these practices.
Physicians who hold positions of technical direction, team coordination, or healthcare management are ethically liable not only for directly engaging in the prohibited conduct, but also for tolerating it or allowing it to occur within their unit.
The rule does, however, preserve payments formally agreed upon for the actual and proven provision of administrative or management services, which remain permitted provided that they are not linked to any privilege in access to positions or to forms of professional favoritism. This distinction is important because it preserves legitimate management arrangements while eliminating the space for structures created solely to disguise the payment of undue advantages under the appearance of legality.
The Life Sciences & Healthcare team at Souto Correa Advogados remains available to clarify any questions on the matter.