Category: Navigating Regulatory Landscapes in Latin America

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current DIGEMAPS, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Profamilia Santo Domingo as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Profamilia Santo Domingo first-in-human, Profamilia Dominican Republic clinical trial, Profamilia CRO, or “go direct Profamilia Santo Domingo,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Profamilia in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, is a real named clinic-network string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the DIGEMAPS file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the clinic is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns DIGEMAPS, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the clinic still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Santo Domingo Profamilia campus. It is not leftover-site 43, not the Dominican Republic insurance intercept (CMS 96031), and not a second CRO-in-DR page. The DR compare hub is country-2 after a DR first-in-human. This slug is the campus string only.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 43 (CMS 96022–96029 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

• Profamilia (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00263341, NCT00561496, NCT00791297.

Cite canonical ALL n=12 and DEVICE n=0. Do not clone insurance-cluster pages onto this slug.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this clinic as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Profamilia first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding DIGEMAPS. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named clinic can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the clinic can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the clinic is not built to own for an investigational device:

• DIGEMAPS. DIGEMAPS is the national file for an investigational device in the Dominican Republic on public bioaccess® copy. A hallway conversation at this campus is not that file. We will not invent unpublished DIGEMAPS clocks here.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How DIGEMAPS actually works (the short version)

Use clinical-trials-dominican-republic. DIGEMAPS is the national file named on public bioaccess® copy. We will not invent a new Dominican clock or a premium on this campus page. An NCT location row is not DIGEMAPS clearance. A hallway conversation at this clinic is not that stack.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not DIGEMAPS clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Do not smear the hospital

Profamilia is a serious named Santo Domingo clinic on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the DIGEMAPS / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Profamilia Santo Domingo directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The clinic can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your DIGEMAPS applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as the DR insurance page?

No. Dominican Republic clinical trial coverage is CMS 96031. This page is the Profamilia campus only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00263341?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. DR operator: clinical-trials-dominican-republic.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current INVIMA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Medicity Bucaramanga as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Medicity Bucaramanga first-in-human, Medicity SAS clinical trial, Medicity CRO Colombia, or “go direct Medicity Bucaramanga,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Medicity S.A.S. in Bucaramanga, Colombia, is a real named research-site string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the INVIMA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the site is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns INVIMA, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the site still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Bucaramanga Medicity campus. It is not FOSCAL Floridablanca (CMS 95923), not Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia Barranquilla (CMS 96024), not Oncomedica Montería (already live), and not Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia as a FOSCAL clone. Sharing Santander is not a license to collapse them. Bucaramanga is not Floridablanca.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 43 (CMS 96022–96029 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

• Medicity S.A.S. (Bucaramanga, Colombia) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01474109, NCT01888874, NCT01894516.

Cite canonical ALL n=12 and DEVICE n=0. Do not clone FOSCAL onto this slug.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this site as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Medicity Bucaramanga first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding INVIMA. A named site is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named site can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the site can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the site is not built to own for an investigational device:

• INVIMA. INVIMA is the national file for an investigational device in Colombia. Resolución 8430/1993 still sits on the ethics and research side of that stack. A hallway conversation on this campus is not the INVIMA dossier. Resolución 2378 does not govern device clinical trials — see the live country pages rather than importing a drug-GCP resolution onto a device file. A hallway conversation at Medicity is not a FOSCAL file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How INVIMA actually works (the short version)

Use CRO in Colombia. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: Colombia ethics typically 4–6 weeks; per-patient $15,000–$25,000. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, INVIMA clocks in-country. We pick the country the device needs. A hospital email in Montería is not INVIMA clearance.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not INVIMA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Do not smear the hospital

Medicity is a serious named Bucaramanga research site on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. This intercept does not recommend Colombia for new FIH execution. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the INVIMA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Medicity Bucaramanga directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The site can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your INVIMA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this site. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as FOSCAL Floridablanca?

No. FOSCAL is CMS 95923. This page is Medicity Bucaramanga only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01474109?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Does this page recommend a new Colombian FIH?

No. The public line is unchanged: bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and owns CRO-in-Colombia; new FIH execution is not the recommendation.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Santander sibling (do not merge): FOSCAL Floridablanca.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Hospital das Clínicas UFG Goiânia as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital das Clinicas UFG Goiania first-in-human, HC-UFG clinical trial, Universidade Federal de Goias CRO, or “go direct Hospital das Clínicas UFG Goiânia,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. HC-UFG / Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Goiás in Goiânia, Brazil, is a real named university-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Goiânia HC-UFG campus. It is not Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia (already live), not Instituto Goiano de Gastroenterologia (already live), not UFU Uberlândia (CMS 96019), and not UFPel (CMS 96029). Sharing “Hospital das Clínicas” is not a license to collapse them onto FMUSP or HCPA. Goiânia is not São Paulo. Goiânia is not Porto Alegre.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 43 (CMS 96022–96029 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

• HC-UFG – Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Goiás (Goiânia, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT03057951, NCT03057977, NCT03071692.

Cite canonical ALL n=12 and DEVICE n=0. Do not clone Araújo Jorge onto this slug.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “HC-UFG first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named university hospital is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university hospital can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university hospital can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university hospital is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at HC-UFG is not an Araújo Jorge file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use clinical-trials-brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Do not smear the hospital

Hospital das Clínicas UFG is a serious named Goiânia university hospital on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital das Clínicas UFG Goiânia directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university hospital can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Araújo Jorge Goiânia?

No. Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia is already live. This page is HC-UFG only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT03057951?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Goiânia sibling (do not merge): Araújo Jorge Goiânia.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANVISA, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Centro Universitário Augusto Motta Rio as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Centro Universitario Augusto Motta first-in-human, UNISUAM Rio clinical trial, Augusto Motta CRO, or “go direct Centro Universitário Augusto Motta Rio,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro Universitário Augusto Motta in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is a real named university-campus string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANVISA file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the university campus is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANVISA, CEP / CONEP, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the university campus still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Rio Augusto Motta campus. It is not Clementino/UFRJ (skip), not Hospital Santa Izabel Salvador (CMS 96018), not HUWC Walter Cantídio Fortaleza (CMS 96027), and not UFPB João Pessoa (CMS 96022). Sharing Brazil is not a license to collapse them. Rio is not Fortaleza. This is not a UFRJ hospital slug.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 43 (CMS 96022–96029 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

• Centro Universitário Augusto Motta (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT01525121, NCT03221439, NCT04166136.

Cite canonical ALL n=12 and DEVICE n=0. Do not clone Clementino/UFRJ onto this slug.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this university campus as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Augusto Motta first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANVISA. A named university campus is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named university campus can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the university campus can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the university campus is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANVISA. Device investigations sit under RDC 837/2023 (dossier in Portuguese: IB, protocol, ICF, insurance, GMP evidence). A hallway conversation at this campus is not that dossier. A hallway conversation at Augusto Motta is not a Clementino file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANVISA actually works (the short version)

Use clinical-trials-brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANVISA clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Do not smear the hospital

Centro Universitário Augusto Motta is a serious named Rio campus on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. Clementino/UFRJ stays skipped. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANVISA / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Centro Universitário Augusto Motta Rio directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The university campus can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANVISA applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this university campus. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Clementino/UFRJ?

No. Clementino/UFRJ stays skipped. This page is Augusto Motta only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT01525121?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Brazil sibling (do not merge): Walter Cantídio Fortaleza.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

Figures cited from a ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep (API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET) and published bioaccess® country pages. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies. General information, not legal or regulatory advice. Confirm current ANMAT, ethics, and FDA rules with qualified advisers. We name only the facility strings and example NCT IDs those sources support. We do not invent a principal investigator. We do not claim Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar Buenos Aires as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar first-in-human, Medicina Familiar Buenos Aires clinical trial, CPMF CRO, or “go direct Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar Buenos Aires,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is a real named clinic string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ANMAT file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the clinic is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ANMAT, accredited ethics, investigational import, insurance, ISO 14155 monitoring, and the FDA 21 CFR 812.28 package — plus the option to add Colombia or another Latin American country if this campus is not the only fit. Sponsors who skip the CRO and email the clinic still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Buenos Aires Medicina Familiar campus. It is not DOM Centro de Reumatología (CMS 96023), not Instituto Médico Especializado IME (CMS 96021), not Centro Oncológico Korben (CMS 96017), and not Sanatorio Finochietto (CMS 95967). Sharing CABA is not a license to collapse them.

Why the campus name wins the search — and why that is not a CRO

Device registries write the city, the hospital, and a list of NCT IDs. They rarely write the CRO. On the 1 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM sweep (interventional studies; all years; complete dump), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts come from leftover unique strings after batch 43 (CMS 96022–96029 live) plus unique NCT IDs in /workspace/five-trials/ctgov-raw/all_interventional.jsonl (17497 studies; ClinicalTrials.gov LATAM facility sweep, API pull 1 September 2026, 6:32 PM ET; dump confirmed 1 September 2026). Alias strings are listed separately. We do not publish a unique-study union across alias strings. We do not invent a global CSV rank. We do not invent unpublished CMS IDs. Registry ranking is not a bioaccess® claim that we ran any of these studies.

• Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar (Buenos Aires, Argentina) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=12; DEVICE n=0. Example NCT IDs: NCT00424476, NCT03517722, NCT04882878.

Cite canonical ALL n=12 and DEVICE n=0. Do not clone DOM onto this slug.

Those are unique NCT IDs per facility string + city + country. They are not a count of first-in-human device programs bioaccess® ran. They are how a sponsor searching the hospital name lands on a campus without landing on an operator.

We cite the IDs as facility evidence. We will not invent a PI. We will not claim bioaccess® ran any of them. No live bioaccess® case-study page names this clinic as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Medicina Familiar Buenos Aires first-in-human” finds ALL n=12 (DEVICE n=0) without finding ANMAT. A named clinic is still a site. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

The site is the site. The CRO is the operator.

A named clinic can provide rooms, coordinators, institutional ethics calendars, and investigators who already appear on NCT rows. That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a first-in-human medical device study a U.S. board expects to survive FDA review.

What the clinic can typically do when a sponsor “goes direct”:

• Discuss investigator interest and whether a protocol can sit in an existing service line.
• Share institutional ethics-committee calendars and hospital research rules.
• Quote visit, staffing, and local procedure costs for the cases they will physically run.

What the clinic is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ANMAT. Argentina’s national medicines and devices authority (Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica) is the file a sponsor actually needs. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that file. A published statutory target on the trial side is 90 business days and the clock pauses for RFIs. Trial authorization and commercial registro are separate petitions. A hallway conversation at Medicina Familiar is not a DOM file.
• Investigational import. Ethics letter, investigator’s brochure, and an importation permit — end-to-end work, not a PI email. See importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America.
• Clinical trial insurance. Required. We will not invent a campus-only premium here.
• ISO 14155 monitoring, EDC, SAE reporting, and the TMF. The site may run visits. The CRO runs the quality system the FDA will later ask about.
• The 21 CFR 812.28 package. Foreign data is eligible for FDA submission and review after GCP / ethics documentation. Eligibility is not clearance, and a site MSA does not produce it.
• Multi-country optionality. If enrollment or the indication later needs another Latin American country, a single-hospital MSA will not stretch.

Going direct to this campus is how you confirm a room. It is not how you open an investigational file.

How ANMAT actually works (the short version)

Use live bioaccess® Argentina / ANMAT pages for the full pathway. Trial authorization and commercial registro are different petitions. Do not put both on one Gantt labeled “Argentina.” A published statutory target on the trial side is on the order of 90 business days and pauses for RFIs; ask for a protocol-specific calendar rather than treating an NCT row as start-up.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ANMAT clearance. bioaccess® manages the file. That is CRO work, not site work.

All bioaccess® device protocols in this country are run under ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data is designed to be eligible for FDA submission and review under 21 CFR 812.28 on a case-by-case basis — not a guarantee of clearance or approval. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE.

Do not smear the hospital

Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar is a serious named Buenos Aires clinic on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. Do not invent a DEVICE n. Do not invent a PI. Use the site when the protocol fits. Hire the operator.

What the CRO still does after you have the campus on a slide

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. This geography is sourced. One campus is not automatically the right room for every indication. bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and the rest of the platform.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, insurance, and the ANMAT / ethics packet.
3. Importer of record and device accountability.
4. Site activation that is more than a tour: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. Activate this campus only if it fits the protocol.
5. ISO 14155 monitoring and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative so the dataset is built for a later Pre-Sub, IDE, 510(k), De Novo, PMA, or HDE — eligibility, not a promise of FDA action.

The firm was founded in 2010. That is the operator layer around a campus string.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Centro Privado de Medicina Familiar Buenos Aires directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The clinic can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ANMAT applicant, importer of record, insurer, ISO 14155 monitor, or 21 CFR 812.28 packager. Contract the CRO, then let the CRO activate the site if the site fits.

Did bioaccess® run the NCT IDs listed here?

No public bioaccess® case-study page names this clinic. We will not invent that claim. This page intercepts the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as DOM Buenos Aires?

No. DOM Centro de Reumatología is CMS 96023. This page is Medicina Familiar only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00424476?

No. We cite it as facility evidence. We will not invent a sponsor or a PI.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was this campus, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Buenos Aires sibling (do not merge): DOM Buenos Aires.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics / national authority ethics, import, and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. We do not invent premiums, limits, or carrier rates on this page. We do not claim a named carrier as a signed bioaccess® partner here. No patient data. No unpublished client. Always bioaccess®.

If you searched claims notice vs SAE clinical trial insurance, insurance claims reporting SAE clock FIH, trial liability notice period LATAM, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

ISO 14155 SAE clocks are short. Some liability forms want claims notice in a window that fights that clock. Ethics will read both. If the form tells the PI not to notify until a lawyer blesses it, you have built a quality-system collision. bioaccess® runs the SAE clock. A carrier writes the notice clause. We do not invent a notice-day statute on this page.

This page is not a clone of Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. That hub is the country-snapshot checklist (territory, named insureds, language, runoff). This page is the claims-notice vs SAE reporting clock intercept. Distinct slug. Distinct title. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ethics / national authority packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Two clocks, one protocol

The live hub already listed claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it. This page is that collision. Medical-device FIH can produce serious adverse events on the table. The monitor and the PI still have to report. A form that treats that report as an admission can scare a site into silence. Get the carrier to write notice that matches GCP, not a product-liability reflex.

Not subject-injury vs TPL, not investigator vs sponsor

Subject-injury vs TPL is CMS 95994. Investigator vs sponsor is CMS 95986. This page is the notice clause. Three distinct searches. Same rule: CRO is not the carrier. No invented rates. No HDI as a signed partner. No Magical BTK.

What ethics and ethics / national authority actually ask for

Use CRO in Colombia. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: Colombia ethics typically 4–6 weeks; per-patient $15,000–$25,000. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, INVIMA clocks in-country. We pick the country the device needs. A hospital email in Montería is not INVIMA clearance. Use clinical-trials-brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ethics / national authority packet, not a post-approval formality. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body — we will not invent a pan-regional limit):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

We will not invent a per-participant dollar figure on this page. Individual ethics committees set thresholds. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A local admitted form can still have a hostile notice clause. A master can still have a friendly one. Read the form, not the country. Ask the broker to show the notice paragraph next to the SAE SOP before you bind.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. SAE clocks do not pause because the policy was bound in Delaware. Territory and notice still have to work in the country of the site.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ethics / national authority packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. Introduction is not a signed partnership on this page. We do not invent rates.

The firm was founded in 2010. Public device case studies (ReGelTec, Axoft, Newrotex, enVVeno, Avantec Vascular / Sangria™ as already published) show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting. We will not invent a premium from those pages.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. That does not flip the public line. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind. We do not invent a rate card on this page.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. This page is claims-notice vs SAE reporting clock. Do not treat them as clones.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Did bioaccess® underwrite the Avantec / Sangria™ $10M policy mentioned on public pages?

No. Public llms.txt copy says bioaccess® ran FIH execution that included placing a $10M clinical-trial insurance policy as an operational workstream. That is CRO coordination, not underwriting. It is not a SKU. It is not a rate we invent here.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was claims-notice language vs the SAE clock, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Siblings: subject injury vs TPL, Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics / national authority ethics, import, and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. We do not invent premiums, limits, or carrier rates on this page. We do not claim a named carrier as a signed bioaccess® partner here. No patient data. No unpublished client. Always bioaccess®.

If you searched add second country clinical trial insurance LATAM, endorsement add Panama to master, multi-country trial liability Latin America, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Country 1 is running. Country 2 is about to sit. Ethics in the second country wants the exhibit to name that country. A one-country local policy is now a trap. The move is an endorsement or a new certificate, not a new CRO contract that pretends to be a binder. bioaccess® sequences geography. A carrier prints the paper. We do not sell the endorsement.

This page is not a clone of Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. That hub is the country-snapshot checklist (territory, named insureds, language, runoff). This page is the endorsement when the protocol adds a second country intercept. Distinct slug. Distinct title. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ethics / national authority packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Local-only paper cannot travel

The local-vs-master intercept is CMS 95976. This page is the amendment: adding Chile after Panama, or Brazil after Mexico, or Ecuador after a DR start. Territory has to name every country on the protocol before the second ethics packet goes in. Additional insureds for the new PI and site take calendar time. Do not wait for SIV in country 2.

Country 2 is not a new Colombian FIH CTA by default

Public line unchanged: do not recommend Colombia for new FIH execution; bioaccess® still runs trials in Colombia and owns CRO-in-Colombia; INVIMA registro remains. Second-country FIH geography on this cluster is Panama, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, El Salvador, or another live hub the device needs — not leftover-site 43.

What ethics and ethics / national authority actually ask for

Use clinical-trials-panama. Panama’s Ministry of Health (MINSA), through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, is the national file. Ethics review runs through institutional bioethics committees registered with the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación (CNBI). Published ethics typically 3–5 weeks; with bioaccess® coordination, protocol submission to first-patient enrollment averages 6–8 weeks on that hub. Per-patient costs there: $12,000–$22,000 in U.S. dollars. A hallway conversation at this hospital is not MINSA clearance. Use clinical-trials-mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics typically 4–6 weeks and COFEPRIS review typically 4–8 weeks after ethics on the live Mexico hub; combined start-up is cited there as a 2.8-month median. Keep trial clocks separate from registro sanitario (~30 working days on that hub). Eligibility of foreign data under 21 CFR 812.28 is not a guarantee of clearance.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ethics / national authority packet, not a post-approval formality. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body — we will not invent a pan-regional limit):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

We will not invent a per-participant dollar figure on this page. Individual ethics committees set thresholds. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

Ask whether the existing master can certificate the new country. If not, start a local admitted form in time for the second ethics date. Introduction is not a quote. No HDI partnership claim.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. AU/IL/CA second-country NCT intercepts are a different cluster (95998–96005). This page is the insurance endorsement.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ethics / national authority packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. Introduction is not a signed partnership on this page. We do not invent rates.

The firm was founded in 2010. Public device case studies (ReGelTec, Axoft, Newrotex, enVVeno, Avantec Vascular / Sangria™ as already published) show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting. We will not invent a premium from those pages.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. That does not flip the public line. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind. We do not invent a rate card on this page.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. This page is endorsement when the protocol adds a second country. Do not treat them as clones.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Did bioaccess® underwrite the Avantec / Sangria™ $10M policy mentioned on public pages?

No. Public llms.txt copy says bioaccess® ran FIH execution that included placing a $10M clinical-trial insurance policy as an operational workstream. That is CRO coordination, not underwriting. It is not a SKU. It is not a rate we invent here.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was adding a second LATAM country insurance endorsement, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Siblings: local vs master, Australia-only NCT → LATAM.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics / national authority ethics, import, and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. We do not invent premiums, limits, or carrier rates on this page. We do not claim a named carrier as a signed bioaccess® partner here. No patient data. No unpublished client. Always bioaccess®.

If you searched Spanish insurance certificate ethics committee LATAM, Portuguese certificate of insurance ANVISA CEP, translated trial liability certificate, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

An English-only certificate in a CNBI, CEP, or INVIMA-side folder is a classic resubmission. The live hub already flagged Spanish (or Portuguese) certificates or notarized summaries when the committee asks. This page is that language intercept. bioaccess® coordinates sworn/certified pages in the operator stack. We do not underwrite. Amavita Sciences™ owns LATAM regulatory translation jobs — we do not quote Sciences per-word rates here and we do not claim sworn-translator status on this slug.

This page is not a clone of Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. That hub is the country-snapshot checklist (territory, named insureds, language, runoff). This page is the language of the certificate the clerk will stamp intercept. Distinct slug. Distinct title. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ethics / national authority packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

What the clerk actually reads

Named insureds, territory, period, additional-insured endorsements, and claims-notice language have to match the Spanish or Portuguese legal names in the ICF and CTA. A Delaware HoldCo certificate that never names the site in the language of the committee is decoration. Brazil still wants Portuguese. Spanish-speaking committees want Spanish. We will not invent a pan-regional translation statute.

Not the holder-card sworn pages, not the EC gate

Sworn translations inside the LATAM Launch Subscription (USD 7,500/year all-in on hub 95739) are commercial registro. This page is the trial-liability certificate in the ethics packet. Different SKU. Different cluster. Do not mix holder/IOR into leftover-site 43.

What ethics and ethics / national authority actually ask for

Use clinical-trials-brazil: combined ethics + ANVISA typically 6–10 weeks under Law 14874 and RDC 837/2023; CEPs capped at 30 business days; published per-patient range $20,000–$35,000. Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams. Use clinical-trials-panama. Panama’s Ministry of Health (MINSA), through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, is the national file. Ethics review runs through institutional bioethics committees registered with the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación (CNBI). Published ethics typically 3–5 weeks; with bioaccess® coordination, protocol submission to first-patient enrollment averages 6–8 weeks on that hub. Per-patient costs there: $12,000–$22,000 in U.S. dollars. A hallway conversation at this hospital is not MINSA clearance.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ethics / national authority packet, not a post-approval formality. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body — we will not invent a pan-regional limit):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

We will not invent a per-participant dollar figure on this page. Individual ethics committees set thresholds. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A master in English with a one-page Spanish summary can work if the committee said so in writing. A Portuguese certificate for CEP/CONEP is not optional stationery in Brazil. Ask. Do not assume.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Language follows the committee, not the founder’s slide deck.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ethics / national authority packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. Introduction is not a signed partnership on this page. We do not invent rates.

The firm was founded in 2010. Public device case studies (ReGelTec, Axoft, Newrotex, enVVeno, Avantec Vascular / Sangria™ as already published) show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting. We will not invent a premium from those pages.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. That does not flip the public line. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind. We do not invent a rate card on this page.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. This page is language of the certificate the clerk will stamp. Do not treat them as clones.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Did bioaccess® underwrite the Avantec / Sangria™ $10M policy mentioned on public pages?

No. Public llms.txt copy says bioaccess® ran FIH execution that included placing a $10M clinical-trial insurance policy as an operational workstream. That is CRO coordination, not underwriting. It is not a SKU. It is not a rate we invent here.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Spanish or Portuguese insurance certificate for LATAM ethics, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Sibling hub: Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. Operator: First-in-Human CRO.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics / national authority ethics, import, and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. We do not invent premiums, limits, or carrier rates on this page. We do not claim a named carrier as a signed bioaccess® partner here. No patient data. No unpublished client. Always bioaccess®.

If you searched clinical trial insurance runoff LPLV, tail coverage after last patient last visit FIH, post-study window trial liability LATAM, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Ethics asks for a policy that does not die on last-patient last-visit. Device follow-up windows outlast the implant day. A binder that expires at LPLV is a resubmission waiting for a clerk. bioaccess® sequences the packet. We do not sell the tail. We do not invent a runoff month-count on this page.

This page is not a clone of Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. That hub is the country-snapshot checklist (territory, named insureds, language, runoff). This page is the policy period through follow-up / runoff after LPLV intercept. Distinct slug. Distinct title. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ethics / national authority packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

What “through follow-up” actually means

The live insurance hub already said: policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window. This page is that clock. Implant, explant, imaging, and SAE after the procedure still sit on the protocol. Claims-made forms need a tail or an extended reporting period. Occurrence forms still need territory and named insureds to survive. Ask the carrier which object you are buying. We will not invent a pan-regional runoff statute.

LPLV is not the ethics gate and not SIV

EC/IRB certificate-to-start is CMS 95993. Binder-before-SIV is CMS 95997. This page is the other end: coverage that outlasts the last visit. Do not clone those slugs. Do not file a certificate that ends on the implant date.

What ethics and ethics / national authority actually ask for

Use clinical-trials-panama. Panama’s Ministry of Health (MINSA), through the Dirección Nacional de Farmacia y Drogas, is the national file. Ethics review runs through institutional bioethics committees registered with the Comité Nacional de Bioética de la Investigación (CNBI). Published ethics typically 3–5 weeks; with bioaccess® coordination, protocol submission to first-patient enrollment averages 6–8 weeks on that hub. Per-patient costs there: $12,000–$22,000 in U.S. dollars. A hallway conversation at this hospital is not MINSA clearance. Use clinical-trials-chile. Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) authorizes studies and investigational-device import. Live Chile blogs already put a typical ISP review in a band of about 30 business days. Commercial ISP registration in a 30–90 day band is a different file — do not put trial authorization and commercial registro on one Gantt labeled “Chile.” An Ethical-Scientific Committee under Law 20.120 still has to sit. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP on this page.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ethics / national authority packet, not a post-approval formality. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body — we will not invent a pan-regional limit):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

We will not invent a per-participant dollar figure on this page. Individual ethics committees set thresholds. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A local admitted policy that ends at LPLV still fails if the protocol has a 12-month follow-up. A master that promises worldwide runoff in a brochure still has to print a certificate the committee will file. Introduction is not a quote.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Follow-up in Panama, Chile, Brazil, or Mexico still has to match territory. New Colombian FIH execution is not the recommendation on the public line.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ethics / national authority packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. Introduction is not a signed partnership on this page. We do not invent rates.

The firm was founded in 2010. Public device case studies (ReGelTec, Axoft, Newrotex, enVVeno, Avantec Vascular / Sangria™ as already published) show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting. We will not invent a premium from those pages.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. That does not flip the public line. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind. We do not invent a rate card on this page.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. This page is policy period through follow-up / runoff after LPLV. Do not treat them as clones.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Did bioaccess® underwrite the Avantec / Sangria™ $10M policy mentioned on public pages?

No. Public llms.txt copy says bioaccess® ran FIH execution that included placing a $10M clinical-trial insurance policy as an operational workstream. That is CRO coordination, not underwriting. It is not a SKU. It is not a rate we invent here.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was runoff / tail coverage after LPLV on a LATAM device FIH, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Siblings (do not clone): EC/IRB certificate to start, bind before SIV.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics / national file ethics, import, and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. We do not invent premiums, limits, or carrier rates on this page. We do not claim a named carrier as a signed bioaccess® partner here. No patient data. No unpublished client. Always bioaccess®.

If you searched Guatemala clinical trial coverage, buy trial insurance Guatemala device FIH, Guatemala trial liability, you were looking for someone who would write international clinical-trial coverage for an investigational device. bioaccess® is a first-in-human medical-device CRO. We are not an insurance carrier. We do not underwrite policies. We do not sell premiums. We do not quote a binder. OUS and Latin American device trials still need trial-specific liability — local admitted paper, a master with local certificates, or both. We run the trial under ISO 14155. We can introduce a specialty carrier. That introduction is not a signed partnership on this page, and it is not a quote.

Guatemala is on the public bioaccess® countries list (live hub at clinical-trials-guatemala). We will not invent a ministry acronym that is not on llms.txt. We will not invent a quetzal premium. Confirm current ethics and coverage rules with qualified advisers. bioaccess® is not the carrier.

This page is not a clone of Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. That hub is the country-snapshot checklist (territory, named insureds, language, runoff). This page is the Guatemala insurance exhibit (public country page only) intercept. Distinct slug. Distinct title. Same operator: the CRO runs the trial; a carrier writes the paper.

The CRO is not the carrier

Founders type “buy clinical trial insurance” and land on CROs, brokers, and hospital MSAs in the same result set. Those are three jobs:

• Carrier. Underwrites participant injury, medical expenses for trial-related events, defense, and site/investigator indemnification — if the form matches the protocol. A hallway conversation is not a binder.
• Broker. Places the form, translations, additional-insured endorsements, and territory wording. Licensed where the paper has to sit.
• CRO. Protocol, IB, ICF, ethics/ethics / national file packet, importer of record for clinical trial devices in Latin America, ISO 14155 monitoring, SAE clock, TMF, and the 21 CFR 812.28 narrative. See OUS FIH and FDA IDE. Eligibility of foreign data is not FDA clearance.

Mixing those jobs is how a startup buys a U.S. product-liability rider, emails a PDF to an ethics committee, and gets a resubmission. Product liability is not clinical-trial liability. A site’s institutional policy is not the sponsor’s trial form.

Why so few specific Guatemala numbers

Because we will not invent them. Cite clinical-trials-guatemala. This intercept exists so “buy Guatemala trial coverage” does not treat the CRO as the underwriter. Typical ethics asks still apply: territory, period, additional insureds, language. Individual committees set thresholds.

Not leftover-site 43, not holder/IOR, not insurance 1–3 clones

El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Uruguay coverage pages already exist. This is Guatemala only. Distinct slug. Do not mix Magical BTK. Do not name HDI as a signed partner.

What ethics and ethics / national file actually ask for

Use the live Guatemala country page. We will not invent unpublished clocks, PAHO standing, or premiums here.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics / ethics / national file packet, not a post-approval formality. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body — we will not invent a pan-regional limit):

• Territory that names every country on the protocol.
• Site and principal investigator as additional insureds when the committee requires it.
• Policy period through last-patient last-visit plus the protocol follow-up window.
• Spanish (or Portuguese) certificate or notarized summary when the committee asks for it.
• Claims-notice language that can sit next to the SAE clock, not against it.

We will not invent a per-participant dollar figure on this page. Individual ethics committees set thresholds. Ask the carrier and the CRO together, before the packet goes in.

Local policy vs controlled master

A master that excludes Guatemala fails the packet. A Guatemala-only local policy that cannot add Panama later is a protocol constraint. New Colombian FIH execution is not the recommendation on the public line.

A “controlled master” that never issues a local certificate is a slide, not a submission. A local-only policy that cannot travel to a second Latin American country is a one-country trap. The operator chooses geography for the device; the paper has to follow the protocol, not the other way around.

What bioaccess® still owns after you have a quote

1. Regulatory-fit, not tourism. Guatemala is on the public countries hub. We pick the country the device needs.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics / ethics / national file packet with insurance documents in the same stack — not a parallel founder email.
3. Importer of record and device accountability. A binder does not import the investigational product.
4. Site activation: contracts, training, investigational product, EDC, monitoring plan. A site MSA that “includes insurance” is still not ISO 14155 monitoring.
5. Introducing a specialty carrier when the founder does not already have admitted paper. Introduction is not a signed partnership on this page. We do not invent rates.

The firm was founded in 2010. Public device case studies (ReGelTec, Axoft, Newrotex, enVVeno, Avantec Vascular / Sangria™ as already published) show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting. We will not invent a premium from those pages.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line, unchanged: bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Because INVIMA clinical-trial approval timelines have become unpredictable, bioaccess® does not currently recommend Colombia for new FIH trial execution. INVIMA commercial registration remains. The country page’s published comparison: Panama ethics 3–5 weeks vs. Colombia 4–6 weeks; per-patient $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on clinical-trials-panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

A Bogotá or Floridablanca ethics packet still wants financial responsibility for participant injury. That does not flip the public line. bioaccess® still runs clinical trials in Colombia. We pick the country the device needs.

Frequently asked questions

Does bioaccess® sell clinical trial insurance?

No. We are the FIH CRO. We can introduce a carrier. We do not underwrite. We do not bind. We do not invent a rate card on this page.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start. This page is Guatemala insurance exhibit (public country page only). Do not treat them as clones.

Can a U.S. product-liability policy cover a LATAM device FIH?

Only if the territory clause and the trial-liability form actually name the countries and the investigational activity. Many U.S. GL/PL policies exclude OUS research. Get it in writing from the carrier. A verbal “we’re global” is not an ethics exhibit.

Did bioaccess® underwrite the Avantec / Sangria™ $10M policy mentioned on public pages?

No. Public llms.txt copy says bioaccess® ran FIH execution that included placing a $10M clinical-trial insurance policy as an operational workstream. That is CRO coordination, not underwriting. It is not a SKU. It is not a rate we invent here.

Next step

If the search that brought you here was Guatemala clinical trial coverage, start as the operator: contact bioaccess® or book from First-in-Human CRO. Guatemala operator: clinical-trials-guatemala. Hub: Clinical Trial Insurance in Latin America: What Sponsors Need to Know Before Study Start.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®