Education agency says medical exam results stand, opens appeals window

In a notice sent Monday night to higher-education providers that took part in ENAMED, the institute cited an “inconsistency” in information provided through the e-MEC electronic system, stemming from the use of a cutoff score different from the one set in a technical note.

• Medical school programs face new wave of litigation in Brazil

The share of students deemed proficient shown on the platform for each school used a cutoff score of 58 points, rather than the 60 points applied by the Education Ministry in the official results. Of the 351 medical programs assessed, 107—about 30%—were classified as having unsatisfactory performance, with fewer than 60% of students considered proficient.

“Education providers have pointed out that, before the publication of the final grades, there was a release of inputs [information provided by the Ministry of Education] to institutions on the e-MEC platform. There was an inconsistency in that data, but the individualized results were calculated with the correct score and duly published. On December 12, the results for each ENAMED participant—not only graduating students, but also practicing physicians who took the exam—were released. Candidates had access to individual score reports showing their percentages of correct answers,” Palacios said.

He added that INEP is still investigating the cause of the inconsistency and that medical schools could not validate the incorrect data.

“We will now open five days next week for the submission of appeals, so institutions can respond,” he said. “Our system will remain open for five days for any type of appeal, and we expect to conclude the process within up to 15 days.”

The notice sent by INEP to medical schools states that there was a mismatch between the guidance given to education providers and the cutoff score applied in ENAMED, as described in two technical notes issued by the institute.

Data posted on the platform in December included the number of enrolled students and those deemed proficient, but the calculation used a 58-point cutoff based on the Angoff statistical method. In two technical notes published by INEP on December 18 and December 30, 2025, however, the institute said the proficiency cutoff would be 60 points, derived from a combination of the Angoff method and Item Response Theory. According to Palacios, that 60-point threshold was used in the official release of results and in the individual score reports sent to ENAMED candidates.

Representatives of medical schools and sector associations said they plan to challenge in court the fact that the 60-point cutoff was defined in ordinances issued after the exam had been administered and after proficiency rates had been disclosed on the e-MEC platform.

According to a representative of a medical school, the e-MEC system informed institutions on December 14 of their student pass rates using the 58-point cutoff.

The discrepancy in cutoff scores meant, for example, that universities which believed in December that they had achieved a score of 3 (considered acceptable) were in fact classified as a 2, a level subject to penalties. In other cases, education providers already facing restrictions for scoring a 2 could be subject to harsher sanctions after being reclassified as a 1.