Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is recently appointed secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He’s made it clear that he intends to “repair” the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). His plans come amidst increasing worries over cap on compensation and deadlines to file claims. Participants are similarly wondering whether the entire program intended to make payment to those injured by vaccination is working.
Here are a few of Kennedy’s most important proposed reforms. He wants to boost the number of special masters handling claims, raise payment caps frozen in the 1980s, and extend the three-year statute of limitations for filing claims. Kennedy called for an amendment to the compensation schedule. In turn, if a new vaccine-related injury is created, people should have the time and flexibility to bring claims within eight years of the injury—rather than three years.
In fact, the VICP was established in part to protect vaccine manufacturers. It provides them with blanket liability protection from lawsuits for vaccine-related injuries, allowing them to operate within the marketplace. Critics say deeper cuts will erode that safety net beyond recognition. Dorit Reiss, a law professor and expert on vaccine law, warns that undoing VICP could lead to a reduction in available vaccines.
“Undoing VICP might mean there’s no vaccines available,” – Dorit Reiss
Kennedy identified two key areas for improvement: adding discovery processes to existing claims and addressing the substantial backlog of pending claims. Revisions were made not just to improve efficiency of compensation, but to increase public confidence in vaccination programs. For this reason, Anna Kirkland, a health policy scholar, emphasized the need for a faster and more robust system of compensation. Done well, this strategy has enormous potential to increase public confidence in vaccines.
“It increases vaccine trust when we have a quick, generous compensation program – when we can tell people: ‘Look, if the worst happens, if you’re the one in a million where things actually go wrong, you can be quickly and generously compensated,’” – Anna Kirkland
Vaccines would still be available even in Kennedy’s reform proposals, his reforms could have far-reaching negative effects on vaccine uptake across the country. We shared his concerns about ending the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers as an important step toward ensuring safe, effective vaccines. Many public health advocates are up in arms about this statement. They warn that these sorts of actions might discourage manufacturers from even making vaccines in the first place.
Kirkland noted that many claims that are now adjudicated under VICP go for relatively small dollar amounts. She contended clarifying the standards to receive compensation is the better course of action than eliminating the program altogether. In response, Reiss said, “Amen.” He noted that the program was intentionally structured to make up for uncommon side effects of vaccinations.
“The program was intentionally and consciously designed to make it easy to compensate,” – Dorit Reiss
Her actions could not be more ill-timed, as vaccine skepticism is reaching unprecedented heights. Given these concerns, many advocates are worried that his big push for reform will do even more to erode trust in established science and in vaccine campaigns. As discussions continue, a bill introduced by Congressman Paul Gosar to abolish VICP has gained traction within anti-vaccine circles, raising alarm among public health officials.
The draft legislation has generated a fierce public debate about its likely negative impact on public health. Other commentators caution that if VICP were abolished manufacturers might exit the vaccine market. They say that new liability risks would create an unacceptable level of danger for companies producing vaccines.
“Make it easier and compensate more, versus blow it all up. And then maybe there’s a third way of foment skepticism, undercut recommendations,” – Anna Kirkland
Claimants under VICP must demonstrate that their injury was caused by the vaccine more than it was not. This requires them to prove there is more than a 50% likelihood that the vaccine in question led to their injury. Reiss emphasized that it’s not necessary to have scientific literature in spades to prove this connection. A reliable expert testimony can do the trick.
In spite of these intricacies, Kennedy is undeterred in his commitment to adjust the current VICP. His administration has been focused on addressing these inefficiencies where possible, trying to strike a balance between protecting the public’s health and ensuring vaccine production continues.