Plans to restructure the nation’s vaccine injury compensation system could destabilize vaccine availability and undermine public health efforts, according to experts. The proposed changes, championed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., target the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a decades-old initiative designed to support individuals who experience rare adverse reactions to vaccines.
Kennedy has publicly advocated for reforming the program, which critics argue could effectively dismantle key protections for both patients and manufacturers. The VICP was established by Congress in 1986 to create a no-fault alternative to traditional litigation, ensuring compensation for eligible individuals while shielding vaccine makers from excessive liability. At the time, the number of U.S. vaccine manufacturers had sharply declined due to legal pressures.
Should the program be significantly altered or discontinued, vaccine producers could face a surge in lawsuits, potentially making it financially unviable to continue producing existing vaccines or developing new ones. “The market is already fragile,” noted one medical ethics expert. “Undermining this system risks driving manufacturers away, which would limit vaccine access for the public.”
The VICP operates through two primary avenues for compensation. One involves a pre-established “table of injuries” that links specific side effects to certain vaccines within designated timeframes, creating a presumption of causation. The other path allows claimants to present evidence demonstrating that a vaccine more likely than not caused their injury, even without existing scientific literature confirming the link.
Some legal scholars point out that the program was intentionally designed to be claimant-friendly, facilitating timely and generous compensation. This approach, they argue, helps maintain public confidence in immunization programs by assuring people that, in the rare event of a severe reaction, support is available.
Kennedy’s proposed changes reportedly include expanding the types of injuries eligible for compensation and accelerating the processing of claims. However, several aspects of the program’s administration fall outside HHS’s direct control, including the appointment of special masters who adjudicate claims—a responsibility vested in the Department of Justice.
Critics of the proposed overhaul warn that eliminating or weakening the VICP would shift injury claims into the traditional court system, where the burden of proof is higher and legal costs can be prohibitive. This could leave affected individuals without recourse, especially in cases involving modest claims that may not attract legal representation.
While some advocates acknowledge the program could benefit from updates—such as increasing compensation caps, expanding the statute of limitations, and adding more special masters—they caution that sweeping changes could have unintended consequences for both public health and individual protections.
