NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
Commentary: Why Inoculating Big
Pharma from Vaccine Lawsuits Makes Sense
|
|
It seemed like Washington at its backroom-dealing worst.
With no debate, congressional conferees in November quietly inserted
language into the Homeland Security Act that prevents parents from suing
Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY )
and other makers of the mercury-containing preservative, thimerosal--an
ingredient once used in infant vaccines that some believe is responsible
for mushrooming rates of autism in young children. Parents and some
consumer advocates have been complaining about the provisions ever
since. "The legislation gives Lilly a get-out-of-court-free card," says
Janell M. Duncan, legislative counsel at Consumers Union.
Story Continues Below Ad
Washington is abuzz with allegations that the drug industry's political
friends were behind it. The provisions were authored by newly named
Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and stuck in the bill by
Representative Dick Armey (R-Tex.). "It appears this provision was added
at the last minute as a payback to a powerful political supporter,"
charges Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who vows to strip the
offending language from the bill after Congress reconvenes in 2003.
The process was indeed dubious. Rather than trying to avoid the
politically charged issue, Congress should have openly debated the pros
and cons. But sometimes even shady dealmaking can yield decent policy.
Far from being a disaster, the provision makes sense, especially as part
of a package of vaccine policy proposals that Congress is expected to
take up.
To understand why, jump back to a mid-1980s crisis. Although vaccines
had revolutionized public health, their side effects were prompting
suits against vaccine makers. As a result, many companies left the
low-profit business. That raised the specter of shortages and a
resurgence of such diseases as polio. So in 1986, Congress limited
companies' liability by creating a national injury compensation
program--in essence, a vaccine court--to evaluate claims and hand out
damages. And if people don't like the awards they get, they're free to
sue in regular court.
That law, however, contains a loophole that plaintiff's lawyers
representing parents with autistic children have since tried to exploit.
Because the vaccine court's compensation program has a three-year
statute of limitations, lawyers seeking damages for children who got the
disease earlier than 1999 have been going after the ingredient makers.
The new bill would give these companies the same legal protections as
vaccine makers. That would eliminate the discrepancy in how the cases
are treated, ending much fruitless litigation; courts have quashed some
attempts to sue the likes of Lilly.
The new law, moreover, would keep claims against ingredient producers in
the vaccine compensation program, which was set up to handle these
difficult issues. Even many trial lawyers who back changes to vaccine
policy--including an extension of the statute of limitations--would
rather deal with the vaccine court. For one thing, the awards can reach
into the millions of dollars. In theory, many cases also have a better
chance, since parents and their lawyers need not prove liability, says
plaintiffs' lawyer Clifford J. Shoemaker. That's crucial in the case of
alleged injury from thimerosal, because there's no proof it causes
autism. To the contrary, autism rates have increased since 2000, when
vaccine makers began reducing the amount of mercury used.
Unless Congress closes the loophole that threatens ingredient makers, a
repeat of the 1980s liability crisis that drove companies out of the
business could occur. "If we vote to strike these provisions," argues
Senator Frist, "we're putting at risk our manufacturing base."
Yet Congress shouldn't stop there. It also needs to improve the
compensation program. Lengthening the statute of limitations is one fix,
particularly as more time is needed for research on whether mercury
plays any role in autism. With studies under way, "it makes sense to
wait for the results," says plaintiff's attorney Michael L. Williams,
chair of the Mercury Vaccine Alliance.
Every child stricken with autism is a cause for sorrow. It's only human
to assign blame and seek damages. But with a program in place to handle
these questions, allowing endless rounds of extra litigation makes no
sense. Even when it goes about things the wrong way, Congress sometimes
gets it right.
By John Carey
Click to buy an
e-print or reprint
of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please
click here.
|
