Late-breaking update: The hearing scheduled for early December has been delayed without suggestion of a future date; however, some patients may have heard coverage of the briefing and the hearing has not been cancelled, so we have chosen to share this information anyway
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created in 1986 as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The program compensates individuals for injuries related to vaccination. Compensation is determined by special masters and is based upon a table of injuries and without the need to go through civil courts. However, victims have the right to appeal via federal circuit court.
This system protects manufacturers, and fees come from a federal excise tax added to each dose of vaccine sold. The societal benefit from this legal protection of manufacturers is the continuation of vaccine supply and development.
Recently, the VICP has been targeted in a case sponsored by the Canary Party. A congressional briefing was held in early November as a precursor to a hearing scheduled for early December. While the briefing was not widely carried by the media, it is difficult to tell whether the hearing will be, so we felt it appropriate to provide some background.
The central complaint is that the program is not fair for plaintiffs. Individuals arguing the case include Ms. Mary Holland and Mr. Rolf Hazelhurst. The Shot of Prevention Blog hosted an informative post composed by Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. The post includes a summary of the plaintiffs’ perspective as well as rebuttals or corrections of misinformation. Ms. Reiss also includes a look at the societal advantages to VICP and the potential disadvantages if the program is repealed.
The Shot of Prevention blog is worth your time to read, especially if the press decides to cover the hearing.
We welcome your input. Please contact us with story ideas, questions or other comments: