OBJECTIVES: Recently, a study conducted in Brazil (Teich et al, 2010) evaluated the decisions and process submitted to the Brazilian Commission on Health Technology Incorporation (CITEC), classifying them according to therapeutic area, response type and applicant. The study concluded that there is no clear definition of priorities for the incorporation of a new technology; however, it did not analyze a possible cost-effectiveness threshold for decision making. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the existence of economic analysis which supports CITEC decisions and map possible trends. METHODS: CITEC decisions and technologies for analysis were obtained from the updated list available at the Ministry of Health website. Only economic studies (cost-effectiveness/utility, cost-minimization and budget impact) from the Brazilian perspective were included and the following databases were consulted: “Medline”, “SciSearch”, “Embase”, “Biosis Preview” and “ISPOR Outcomes Research Digest”. RESULTS: Technologies were classified in 3 categories: incorporated, not-incorporated and in-analysis; and the results from economic evaluations were classified into: dominant /cost-saving; up to $Brz30,000; $Brz30,000-50,000; $Brz50,000-100,000 and above $Brz100,000 per outcome (ideally QALY or LY, but others were considered). Of the technologies that were not-incorporated, only 2 presented economic evaluation from Brazilian perspective: 1 study with incremental cost up to $Brz30,000 and 1 between $Brz50-100,000. From incorporated technologies, only 20% presented economic evaluations with results belonging to all categories (including above $Brz100,000 per outcome). From technologies in analysis, 20% had economic studies, being most of them dominant or cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, there is no criterion for health technology assessment and inclusion of new technologies in Brazilian public system (SUS) and also a lack of quality in the economic analysis conducted. Therefore, besides the absence of priorities, the absence of criteria for technology incorporation could potentially lead the system to be inefficient, spending more money than necessary and not adopting cost-saving therapies.