Category: Preparing for First-In-Human Studies

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 ISP, 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 Dr. Sótero del Río Santiago as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched Hospital Sotero del Rio first-in-human, Sotero del Rio Santiago clinical trial, Sotero del Rio CRO, or “go direct Hospital Dr. Sótero del Río Santiago,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. Hospital Dr. Sotero del Rio in Santiago, Chile, is a real named public-hospital string on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is not a first-in-human medical-device CRO, and it is not the operator of the ISP file.

bioaccess®’s position is simple and it is not adversarial: the hospital is the site. The First-in-Human CRO still owns ISP, Ethical-Scientific Committee / Law 20.120, 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 hospital still have to rebuild that stack. An NCT location row is not a CRO.

This page is the named Santiago Sótero del Río campus. It is not Clínica Las Condes, not Clínica Dermacross, not Psicomed Antofagasta, and not PUC Chile (not covered on this page). Sharing Santiago is not a license to collapse them. Sótero del Río is not Las Condes. PUC Chile is not covered on this page.

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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• Hospital Dr. Sotero del Rio (Santiago, Chile) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=10; DEVICE n=1. Example NCT IDs: NCT00316264, NCT00424476, NCT00545532.

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 hospital as a client site.

That is the leak: a founder searching “Sótero del Río first-in-human” finds ALL n=10 (DEVICE n=1) without finding ISP. A named 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 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 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 hospital is not built to own for an investigational device:

• ISP. Instituto de Salud Pública (ISP) authorizes studies and investigational-device import in Chile. Live Chile blogs already put a typical ISP review in a band of about 30 business days. Commercial ISP registration (30–90 days) is a different file. An Ethical-Scientific Committee under Law 20.120 still has to sit. A hallway conversation on this campus is not that stack. We will not invent PAHO/WHO Level 4 standing for ISP. A hallway conversation at Sótero del Río is not a Las Condes 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 ISP actually works (the short version)

Use Clinical Trials in 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.

Ask for a protocol-specific calendar. A hospital email is not ISP 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.

Not a critique of the hospital

Hospital Dr. Sótero del Río is a serious named Santiago hospital on the public registry. ALL n=10 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n beyond 1. PUC Chile is not covered on this page. 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 ISP / 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract Hospital Dr. Sótero del Río Santiago directly for a device FIH?

You can try. The hospital can discuss investigator interest, local visit costs, and ethics calendars. It cannot, by ranking on ClinicalTrials.gov, become your ISP 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 hospital. We will not invent that claim. This page answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Las Condes or PUC Chile?

No. Clínica Las Condes has its own page. PUC Chile is not covered on this page. This page is Sótero del Río only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00316264?

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. Santiago sibling (do not merge): Las Condes Santiago.

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 University of Brasília as a bioaccess® client.

If you searched University of Brasilia first-in-human, UnB clinical trial, Universidade de Brasilia CRO, or “go direct University of Brasília,” you followed a campus string ClinicalTrials.gov still publishes. University of Brasília (UnB) in Brasília, 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 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 Brasília UnB campus. It is not Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal (already published), not Hospital Sírio-Libanês Brasília (already published), not Chronos Pesquisa Clínica Brasília (already published), and not HC-UFG Goiânia (separate page). Sharing Brasília is not a license to collapse them. UnB is not HBDF.

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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• University of Brasilia (Brasília, Brazil) — canonical NCT string: ALL interventional n=11; DEVICE n=3. Example NCT IDs: NCT00673998, NCT01655108, NCT01874795.

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 “UnB first-in-human” finds ALL n=11 (DEVICE n=3) 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 UnB is not an HBDF 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 in 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.

Not a critique of the hospital

University of Brasília is a serious named campus on the public registry. ALL n=11 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n beyond 3. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in Panama. We pick the country the device needs. The founder podcast is Global Trial Accelerators™.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contract University of Brasília 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Hospital de Base Brasília?

No. Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal is already published. This page is UnB only.

Did bioaccess® run NCT00673998?

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. Brasília sibling (do not merge): Hospital de Base Brasília.

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 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. The DR compare hub is country-2 after a DR first-in-human. This page 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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

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

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 in the 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.

Not a critique of the hospital

Profamilia is a serious named Santo Domingo clinic on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as the DR insurance page?

No. Dominican Republic clinical trial coverage has its own page. 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 in the 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, not Centro de Reumatología y Ortopedia Barranquilla, not Oncomedica Montería (already published), and not Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia as a FOSCAL duplicate. 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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

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

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. Colombia ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: 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 Bucaramanga 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.

Not a critique of the hospital

Medicity is a serious named Bucaramanga research site on the public registry. ALL n=12 is registry volume, not a punchline. We do not invent a DEVICE n. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as FOSCAL Floridablanca?

No. FOSCAL has its own page. 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 bioaccess® run first-in-human studies in Colombia?

Yes. bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now, through our own CRO in Colombia.

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 published), not Instituto Goiano de Gastroenterologia (already published), not UFU Uberlândia, and not UFPel. 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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

• 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.

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 in 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.

Not a critique of 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. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Araújo Jorge Goiânia?

No. Hospital Araújo Jorge Goiânia is already published. 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 (not covered on this page), not Hospital Santa Izabel Salvador, not HUWC Walter Cantídio Fortaleza, and not UFPB João Pessoa. Sharing Brazil is not a license to collapse them. Rio is not Fortaleza. This is not a UFRJ hospital page.

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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

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

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 in 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.

Not a critique of 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. We do not invent a DEVICE n. Clementino/UFRJ is not covered on this page. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as Clementino/UFRJ?

No. Clementino/UFRJ is not covered on this page. 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, not Instituto Médico Especializado IME, not Centro Oncológico Korben, and not Sanatorio Finochietto. 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), this campus sits here after filters:

Counts are unique NCT IDs from a ClinicalTrials.gov sweep of Latin American facilities pulled 1 September 2026.

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

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.

Not a critique of 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. We do not invent a DEVICE n. 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: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics review in both Panama and Colombia runs on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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 answers the search; it does not claim the studies.

Is this the same page as DOM Buenos Aires?

No. DOM Centro de Reumatología has its own page. 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-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. Recent rule changes and the primary-law rules that matter most for this topic:

• Mexico: under the COFEPRIS simplification Acuerdo of 24 April 2025 (DOF 28 April 2025), art. 5, the study insurance (policy or certificate) or a current financial fund is no longer part of the initial COFEPRIS application. It must be filed within 15 business days after the protocol is authorized, or the authorization can be revoked. This changed only the COFEPRIS filing: ethics committees may still ask to see the policy before they approve. No-risk observational studies are exempt. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §5.14 still requires the fund for compensation. See Mexico’s 15-business-day rule.
• Argentina: ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025 (in force 1 December 2025, replacing Disp. 6677/2010), Annex II §3.14, says a study may start only once the sponsor has contracted a “seguro constituido en el país” (insurance taken out in Argentina). The consent form must name the insurer and its address. This applies to clinical pharmacology studies of medicines. ANMAT’s device rule (Disp. 969/1997) has no insurance clause, but Buenos Aires City law requires insurance or another financial guarantee for research there (Ley 3301, art. 12), and Buenos Aires Province requires the health institution to show insurance before a higher-risk protocol is approved (Decreto 3389/2024, art. 8).
• Panama: Decreto Ejecutivo 21 of 23 April 2026, art. 67(2), requires the investigator to obtain from the sponsor “financial provisions” for compensating possible damage and to attach that agreement to the bioethics submission. We did not find an explicit insurance-policy mandate in the decree; a certificate of insurance is the usual way to document the provision, and committees may ask for one.
• Brazil: Lei 14.874/2024 (arts. 23 and 26 XV) makes the sponsor responsible for indemnifying participants and for their trial-related care. The statute itself does not require an insurance policy, and its regulating Decreto 12.651/2025 adds none that we found. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Under Lei Complementar 126/2007, art. 19, insurance bought by Brazil-resident people or Brazil-domiciled companies for risks in Brazil must be placed in Brazil, with narrow exceptions in art. 20.
• Peru: DS 021-2017-SA, art. 28, requires a policy with coverage in Peru (a foreign insurer needs a legal representative in Peru), a financial fund for immediate care until the policy pays, the policy details in the consent form, and validity until the National Final Report, renewed while late damage is possible.
• Costa Rica: Ley 9234 art. 31 and Decreto 39061-S art. 14 require a civil liability policy enforceable in Costa Rica, from an insurer with a branch or service center in the country. Under the decree it runs at least two years after the final report is delivered to the ethics committee (art. 14(a)) and three years after each participant’s participation ends (art. 14(b)); Ley 9234 art. 31 sets a floor of two years after participation ends. Each participant receives proof of the policy (art. 32). See Costa Rica under Ley 9234.

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

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.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: claims-notice vs SAE reporting clock. 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-committee and national authority submission, 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 has its own page. Investigator vs sponsor has its own page. This page is the notice clause. Three distinct searches. Same rule: CRO is not the carrier.

What ethics committees and the national authority actually ask for

Use CRO in Colombia. Colombia ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. Published comparison already on the Panama country page: 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 is not INVIMA clearance. Use Clinical Trials in Brazil. In Brazil a CEP reviews ethics under Lei 14.874/2024 and ANVISA reviews device trials under RDC 837/2023. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams.

Insurance documentation is usually in the ethics-committee and national authority submission, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• 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.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. 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-committee and national authority submission 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. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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. 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.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page is claims-notice vs SAE reporting clock.

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.

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 Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®

General information, not insurance, legal, or regulatory advice. Confirm current ethics-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. Recent rule changes and the primary-law rules that matter most for this topic:

• Mexico: under the COFEPRIS simplification Acuerdo of 24 April 2025 (DOF 28 April 2025), art. 5, the study insurance (policy or certificate) or a current financial fund is no longer part of the initial COFEPRIS application. It must be filed within 15 business days after the protocol is authorized, or the authorization can be revoked. This changed only the COFEPRIS filing: ethics committees may still ask to see the policy before they approve. No-risk observational studies are exempt. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §5.14 still requires the fund for compensation. See Mexico’s 15-business-day rule.
• Argentina: ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025 (in force 1 December 2025, replacing Disp. 6677/2010), Annex II §3.14, says a study may start only once the sponsor has contracted a “seguro constituido en el país” (insurance taken out in Argentina). The consent form must name the insurer and its address. This applies to clinical pharmacology studies of medicines. ANMAT’s device rule (Disp. 969/1997) has no insurance clause, but Buenos Aires City law requires insurance or another financial guarantee for research there (Ley 3301, art. 12), and Buenos Aires Province requires the health institution to show insurance before a higher-risk protocol is approved (Decreto 3389/2024, art. 8).
• Panama: Decreto Ejecutivo 21 of 23 April 2026, art. 67(2), requires the investigator to obtain from the sponsor “financial provisions” for compensating possible damage and to attach that agreement to the bioethics submission. We did not find an explicit insurance-policy mandate in the decree; a certificate of insurance is the usual way to document the provision, and committees may ask for one.
• Brazil: Lei 14.874/2024 (arts. 23 and 26 XV) makes the sponsor responsible for indemnifying participants and for their trial-related care. The statute itself does not require an insurance policy, and its regulating Decreto 12.651/2025 adds none that we found. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Under Lei Complementar 126/2007, art. 19, insurance bought by Brazil-resident people or Brazil-domiciled companies for risks in Brazil must be placed in Brazil, with narrow exceptions in art. 20.
• Peru: DS 021-2017-SA, art. 28, requires a policy with coverage in Peru (a foreign insurer needs a legal representative in Peru), a financial fund for immediate care until the policy pays, the policy details in the consent form, and validity until the National Final Report, renewed while late damage is possible.
• Costa Rica: Ley 9234 art. 31 and Decreto 39061-S art. 14 require a civil liability policy enforceable in Costa Rica, from an insurer with a branch or service center in the country. Under the decree it runs at least two years after the final report is delivered to the ethics committee (art. 14(a)) and three years after each participant’s participation ends (art. 14(b)); Ley 9234 art. 31 sets a floor of two years after participation ends. Each participant receives proof of the policy (art. 32). See Costa Rica under Ley 9234.

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

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 separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: endorsement when the protocol adds a second country. 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-committee and national authority submission, 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 page has its own page. 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 can be Colombia

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now, through our own CRO in Colombia; INVIMA registro is a separate service. Second-country FIH geography on this cluster is Colombia, Panama, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, El Salvador, or another live hub the device needs.

What ethics committees and the national authority actually ask for

Use Clinical Trials in 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 in Mexico and CRO in Mexico. Ethics committee review comes first, then COFEPRIS review; bioaccess® confirms the calendar per protocol. 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-committee and national authority submission, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• 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.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. 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.

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 pages are a different cluster. This page is the insurance endorsement.
2. Protocol, IB, ICF, and the ethics-committee and national authority submission 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. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. Ethics timing in Panama and Colombia follows each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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. 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.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page is endorsement when the protocol adds a second country.

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.

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-committee, regulatory, import and coverage rules with qualified advisers and a licensed broker. This page does not quote premiums, limits or carrier rates.

What the law says (verified 29 October 2026)

Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country sets out each country’s rule with links to the primary text. Recent rule changes and the primary-law rules that matter most for this topic:

• Mexico: under the COFEPRIS simplification Acuerdo of 24 April 2025 (DOF 28 April 2025), art. 5, the study insurance (policy or certificate) or a current financial fund is no longer part of the initial COFEPRIS application. It must be filed within 15 business days after the protocol is authorized, or the authorization can be revoked. This changed only the COFEPRIS filing: ethics committees may still ask to see the policy before they approve. No-risk observational studies are exempt. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 §5.14 still requires the fund for compensation. See Mexico’s 15-business-day rule.
• Argentina: ANMAT Disposición 7516/2025 (in force 1 December 2025, replacing Disp. 6677/2010), Annex II §3.14, says a study may start only once the sponsor has contracted a “seguro constituido en el país” (insurance taken out in Argentina). The consent form must name the insurer and its address. This applies to clinical pharmacology studies of medicines. ANMAT’s device rule (Disp. 969/1997) has no insurance clause, but Buenos Aires City law requires insurance or another financial guarantee for research there (Ley 3301, art. 12), and Buenos Aires Province requires the health institution to show insurance before a higher-risk protocol is approved (Decreto 3389/2024, art. 8).
• Panama: Decreto Ejecutivo 21 of 23 April 2026, art. 67(2), requires the investigator to obtain from the sponsor “financial provisions” for compensating possible damage and to attach that agreement to the bioethics submission. We did not find an explicit insurance-policy mandate in the decree; a certificate of insurance is the usual way to document the provision, and committees may ask for one.
• Brazil: Lei 14.874/2024 (arts. 23 and 26 XV) makes the sponsor responsible for indemnifying participants and for their trial-related care. The statute itself does not require an insurance policy, and its regulating Decreto 12.651/2025 adds none that we found. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Under Lei Complementar 126/2007, art. 19, insurance bought by Brazil-resident people or Brazil-domiciled companies for risks in Brazil must be placed in Brazil, with narrow exceptions in art. 20.
• Peru: DS 021-2017-SA, art. 28, requires a policy with coverage in Peru (a foreign insurer needs a legal representative in Peru), a financial fund for immediate care until the policy pays, the policy details in the consent form, and validity until the National Final Report, renewed while late damage is possible.
• Costa Rica: Ley 9234 art. 31 and Decreto 39061-S art. 14 require a civil liability policy enforceable in Costa Rica, from an insurer with a branch or service center in the country. Under the decree it runs at least two years after the final report is delivered to the ethics committee (art. 14(a)) and three years after each participant’s participation ends (art. 14(b)); Ley 9234 art. 31 sets a floor of two years after participation ends. Each participant receives proof of the policy (art. 32). See Costa Rica under Ley 9234.

None of these rules sets a minimum dollar limit. Limits come from contracts and underwriting. Insurers price a specific protocol, so see what insurers need before they’ll quote.

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 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 is that language page. bioaccess® coordinates sworn/certified pages in the operator stack. We do not underwrite.

This page is separate from Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. That hub sets out each country’s legal requirement with primary-law citations. This page’s topic: language of the certificate the clerk will stamp. 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-committee and national authority submission, 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. In Brazil, CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance, but a Brazilian site that requires a policy may want it in Portuguese. Spanish-speaking committees want Spanish.

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

Sworn translations for a commercial registro belong to the market-access file. This page is the trial-liability certificate in the ethics packet. Different SKU. Different cluster.

What ethics committees and the national authority actually ask for

Use Clinical Trials in Brazil. In Brazil a CEP reviews ethics under Lei 14.874/2024 and ANVISA reviews device trials under RDC 837/2023. CEPs and CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015). Trial authorization and later market registration are separate workstreams. Use Clinical Trials in 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-committee and national authority submission, not a post-approval formality. Two exceptions: in Mexico the policy goes to COFEPRIS within 15 business days after authorization, and in Brazil CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance. Typical asks (confirm with the reviewing body):

• 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.

None of the national rules or ethics-committee documents we read sets a per-participant dollar minimum. 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. In Brazil, CEP/CONEP don’t ask for proof of insurance (CONEP manual, 2015); if a site contract or the sponsor’s own program requires a policy, a Portuguese version helps the site and any local insurer. 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-committee and national authority submission 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. An introduction is not a partnership or a quote.

The firm was founded in 2010. Published first-in-human device case studies show FIH execution with import and insurance as workstreams — not as bioaccess® underwriting.

Colombia is still on the map

Public line: bioaccess® runs first-in-human studies in Colombia now — local entity, Miami headquarters, own CRO in Colombia. Colombia’s regulatory framework is changing for the better. INVIMA commercial registration remains. In Panama and Colombia alike, ethics timing depends on each committee’s meeting schedule. The country page’s published per-patient comparison: $12K–$22K vs. $15K–$25K as published on Clinical Trials in 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. 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.

Is this the same article as the LATAM insurance hub?

No. The hub is Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. This page is language of the certificate the clerk will stamp.

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.

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. Hub guide: Clinical Trial Liability Insurance in Latin America: Requirements by Country. Operator: First-in-Human CRO.

Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO · bioaccess®