The Immunization Injury Compensation Program was created in 1986 by an act of Congress. (Image credit: MarsBars via Getty Images)
For nearly four decades, citizens who believe they have been harmed by vaccines have had recourse to a little-known mechanism known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, often referred to as an “immunity tribunal.”
Surgeon General Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly criticized the system, calling it “biased” in payments, slow, and unfair. He has pledged to “dramatically change” or “modernize” the institution.
As an expert in law and medical-legal issues, I have devoted my research to the history and political aspects of this program in my paper “Vaccine Tribunal: Legal Aspects of Medical Harm”.
You might be interested
-
An Analysis of RFK Jr.'s (Numerous) False Claims About COVID Vaccines
-
Children's COVID vaccines in legal limbo amid federal controversy
-
Thimerosal is safe and rarely used. So why do anti-vaccine groups continue to demonize it?
Despite careful monitoring and proven safety of vaccines for the majority of the population, rare complications may occur in individuals. The compensation system is designed to identify such individuals and provide them with legal protection.
Based on 15 years of research, I acknowledge the need for partial improvements. However, radical changes may pose risks to public health.
Definition of vaccine-associated complications
The program is an administrative mechanism that allows medical experts, lawyers, and government agencies to determine the validity of claims of vaccine-related complications.
Originally created in 1986 to address the problem of side effects from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, the program has protected manufacturers from lawsuits, preventing potential shortages of the vaccine.
The procedure involves filing a lawsuit in federal court, where the case is heard by a special master. The Ministry of Health is the defendant, and compensation is paid from a fund formed by a tax on each dose of the vaccine.
Legal support for plaintiffs is financed from this fund regardless of the outcome of the case.
Requirements for modernization
There have been significant changes since the law was passed, but legislative adjustments have not been made. For example, the fixed compensation limit of $250,000 has not been indexed for inflation, and the three-year statute of limitations often results in missed opportunities to file claims.
The expansion of the program to cover vaccines for pregnant women in 2023 did not address the problem of covering adult vaccines, such as the shingles vaccine. COVID vaccines are handled under a separate, controversial system.
Proposed bipartisan reforms, including increasing the number of special masters, are supported by a variety of parties, including Kennedy.
Problems of systemic changes
The lack of detail in Kennedy's proposals leaves questions unanswered. The least risky approach is to push through Congress on the reforms already proposed.
However, some statements point to a possible attempt to completely overhaul the system. Any changes would require legislative amendments, which is difficult in a context of political disagreement.
Potential reform strategies
Directly changing the program’s structure would require congressional and presidential approval, which is unlikely under current conditions. The alternative would be to administratively add new conditions, such as autism, to the list of compensable complications, despite the lack of scientific evidence.
However, such a move would face resistance from the medical community and potential lawsuits.
Impact on producers
Changing vaccine recommendations through the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices could remove their protection from lawsuits. That would return the practice of suing drug companies directly, which is why the program was created in the 1980s in the first place.
However, winning such cases is complicated by high evidentiary requirements and corporate resources.
SEE ALSO
— The principle of action of mRNA vaccines
— Medical journal rejects RFK's request to retract study
— Cuts in funding for mRNA vaccines: risks to national security
A return to the civil lawsuit system would set precedents similar to those that led to the program's creation. But current realities could make the process even more difficult for plaintiffs.
The debate over reforms continues to generate heated discussions among stakeholders. Despite the pressure, the current system has proven resistant to radical change.
This adapted article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. The original can be found here.
TAGS vaccination
Anna Kirkland, professor of gender studies at the University of Michigan
An expert in medical law, Anna focuses on the interaction between law and healthcare. Her latest work analyzes the application of anti-discrimination norms in medicine. She has written books on the legal aspects of obesity and vaccination.
Comments are available after authorization.
Please refresh the page to enter your display name.
Exit Read more
An Analysis of RFK Jr.'s (Numerous) False Claims About COVID Vaccines
Children's COVID vaccines in legal limbo amid federal controversy
Thimerosal is safe and rarely used. So why do anti-vaccine groups continue to demonize it?
Bird Flu: Experts Warn of Dangers of RFK Proposals
Universal Cancer Vaccine: Prospects for Clinical Trials
Dementia Vaccines: New Horizons for Medical Research
LSD Therapy: Long-Term Anxiety Reduction Confirmed by Research
An Analysis of RFK Jr.'s (Numerous) False Claims About COVID Vaccines
Cannabis and Oncology: An Analysis of Potential Risks
Diagnosis of penicillin allergy: modern methods
Medical journal rejects RFK's request to retract study
Cuts in funding for mRNA vaccines: risks to national security. TOPICAL
Reform of the “vaccine court”: challenges and prospects
The Myth of Scientific Neutrality: Why It Matters
Racism in Victorian Anthropology: Historical Context
Antarctic Changes: Global Consequences
Primate evolution: new evidence on cold adaptations
Antidepressants During Pregnancy: New FDA Data POPULAR
1The Myth of Scientific Neutrality: Why It Matters
Live Science is part of the international media group Future.
- Contacts
- Legal information
- Confidentiality
- Advertising
- Career
- Editorial Policy
© Future US, Inc. 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.
var dfp_config = { “site_platform”: “vanilla”, “keywords”: “type_opinion,type-crosspost,exclude-from-syndication,serversidehawk,videoarticle,van-enable-adviser-
Sourse: www.livescience.com
