Robert F. Kennedy Jr. though, just named Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Importantly, in this announcement he declared his intention to “repair” the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). His comments come at a time when misinformation has been spreading about vaccine safety, as well as vaccine supply in the United States. If implemented, Kennedy’s plans would result in a significant regime shift away from compensation for vaccine-related injuries. They can—and should—re-draft the future for vaccine manufacturers in the country.
The VICP was established as a way to counteract a troubling trend taking place in the vaccine industry. Manufacturers were exiting the marketplace due to risks of litigation. This program was purposely created to ensure that there was a safety net available for people who experienced a bad medical event after vaccination. VICP’s coverage goes beyond childhood vaccines. Most routine vaccines are covered by the VICP. This program provides monetary compensation to people who can demonstrate a direct connection between the vaccine and their injuries.
While we appreciate Kennedy’s dedication to improving the VICP, Jerry’s proposal is deeply troubling for its potential impact on vaccine accessibility. In its present form, the program pays for claims quickly and liberally, thus enhancing the public’s confidence in vaccination. Many claims processed under VICP involve relatively modest compensation amounts, but they are crucial in reassuring the public that there is support available if something goes wrong.
Claimants have to collect a significant amount of evidence to show that a vaccine has led to a serious side effect. They have the burden of proving it’s more than 50% likely the vaccine caused their injury. This requirement was meant as part of the delicate compromise that aimed to protect vaccine manufacturers from liability, while still making injured parties whole.
In 1980, the U.S. had 18 vaccine manufacturers, but by 1990 that market had shrunk to only four. Today, there are only three vaccine makers based in the U.S. This disturbing trajectory would only be exacerbated by proposed amendments to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Dorit Reiss, a prominent legal scholar and public policy expert on vaccine policy, sounded the alarm. She warned that without the protections offered by VICP, it would lead to a shortage of vaccines.
Kennedy’s proposed reforms recommend more special masters to process claims. He calls for raising payment cap limits that have been frozen since the late 1980s. He emphasized that the statute of limitations need to be much longer than three years. This amendment will make it so people with legitimate claims always have the opportunity to seek recovery. Under existing law, people can have their cases reopened for the previous eight years if a new injury is added to the state’s list of compensable injuries. This increases the typical three-year period to eight years.
Kennedy asserted, “If we want safe and effective vaccines, we need to end the liability shield.”
Anna Kirkland, an associate professor of health policy and researcher on vaccine injury compensation, emphasized that there are many directions to take with VICP reforms. She stated, “Make it easier and compensate more, versus blow it all up. And then maybe there’s a third way of fomenting skepticism, undercutting recommendations.” This powerful statement highlights the need to strike a complex balance between protecting public safety and confidence in vaccine research and deployment.
Kirkland further noted that a robust compensation program enhances vaccine trust: “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, whereas if you instead get a vaccine-preventable disease, you don’t have any compensation.’”
Reiss echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that compensation should be straightforward and accessible. “The program was intentionally and consciously designed to make it easy to compensate.” She made a crucial point—if an injury occurs within a defined time period after vaccination, causation is presumed. This presumption makes it easier for people as they pursue their claims.
Though many experts applaud Kennedy’s efforts to reform VICP, they warn of unintended risks. Jeffrey Caplan, a bioethicist, cautioned that distrust in mainstream science is still a big worry. He remarked, “The biggest problem is still undermining trust in mainstream science.”
Kennedy is using this opportunity to push forward his plans to “fix” VICP. It’s imperative that public health and vaccine development communities come together in good faith discourse. The balance between protecting manufacturers and providing fair compensation for those injured by vaccines will be central to discussions on public health policy moving forward.
