Difference between revisions of "Vaccine Injury Compensation Program"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(A quick article on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; and please give me night time edit privs. Thanks.)
 
m (categorize)
Line 70: Line 70:
 
  | URL        =  
 
  | URL        =  
 
  }} retrieved on 2008-01-21 -->
 
  }} retrieved on 2008-01-21 -->
 +
 +
[[category:United States Department of Health and Human Services]]

Revision as of 18:47, March 6, 2008

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is a no-fault fund set up in 1988 by the United States Department of Health and Human Services to indemnify medical doctors and vaccine manufacturers from liability in cases of injuries caused by vaccines.

The maximum benefit for death is $250,000 plus attorneys'.[1] As of 2007, the fund had paid out $1.18 billion to 1,500 victims, including attorneys' fees, burial and medical costs, for an average payout that exceeds $786,000 per victim.[2]

The vaccines covered by the compensation service are those aimed at protecting against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), polio, hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), Hemophilus influenzae type b, and rotavirus. Pneumococcal vaccine is expected to be covered soon.

Criticisms of the program

Under the no-fault VICP system, medical doctors have no financial risk in recommending vaccinations because the government indemnifies them and their malpractice insurance against tort claims resulting from vaccine injuries.

VICP requires a $250 filing fee, and requires the mother of the victim to submit her own prenatal medical records for scrutiny.[1] The average claim takes two years to resolve.[3] These hurdles discourage the filing of smaller claims, such as lost wages and costs associated with short term hospitalization for high fever and dehydration not causing permanent damage. The maximum benefit for death is $250,000 plus attorneys' fees.[1] Thomas E. Balbier, Jr. testified that "there are going to be eligibility requirements which seem unfair to some applicants."[3]

See also

References

Sources