* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
#9119
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982."
==========================================================================================
Briefing Paper prepared by The National Vaccine Information Center 421-E
Church Street Vienna, VA 22180
Homeland Security and Vaccine Compensation
What is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? The National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Public Law 99-660, was a landmark vaccine safety and
compensation law, passed by Congress after five years of effort by the National
Vaccine Information Center, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several
vaccine manufacturers.
Physician organizations and vaccine manufacturers were seeking fewer lawsuits
and they asserted that this would help insure the availability of vaccines and
result in reduced prices.
Parents were seeking a less expensive, less time consuming and emotionally
draining alternative to a lawsuit. When the law was passed, parents who had
pending lawsuits made a choice between the VICP and continuing their law suit.
Parents insisted on preserving the right to go to court if the VICP ruled
against them or the award was not sufficient to care for the injured child.
What other provisions were part of the law? Parents fought hard to have
safety provisions as part of the law in an effort to prevent other children from
suffering a vaccine injury or death. Compensation without prevention was not
acceptable. 1. All doctors who administer vaccines must report vaccine reactions
to federal health authorities. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System
(VAERS) was created as a centralized reporting system for vaccine adverse
events. 2. All doctors are required to record vaccine reactions in the patient's
permanent medical record, in an effort to prevent a child from being
revaccinated after a previous reaction. 3. Doctors are required to keep a record
of the date, manufacturer's name and lot number of the vaccines given, making it
easier to obtain that information and assist in identifying especially reactive
lots of vaccine. 4. Doctors are required to provide parents with written
information prior to delivery of the vaccinations, in an effort to help parents
make better-informed decisions. 5. The Federal Government is required to promote
the improvement of existing vaccines and the development of safer vaccines; so
fewer children would suffer an adverse event.
How is this connected to Homeland Security? The VICP has a very short statute
of limitations (time in which to file a claim), of 3 years for a vaccine injury
and 2 years for a death resulting from a vaccination. In the past ten years
autism has increased by 500% in most states and some parents associate their
child's autism with an MMR vaccine reaction or with Thimerosal, a preservative
used in some vaccines for many years. Thimerosal is a mercury derivative (a
known neuro-toxin) used in killed and recombinant vaccines to prevent the growth
of bacteria in multi-dose vials. In 1999 the government recommended drug
companies remove Thimerosal from vaccines and produce single-dose vials, which
would not require a preservative. A diagnosis of autism is very rarely made in
time for a child to qualify for the VICP. This has led to a large number of
lawsuits that are outside of the VICP that are in state court. Most states have
ruled against these cases due to the jurisdictional issue.
On November 13, 2002, the Homeland Security Bill was passed by the House of
Representatives and sent to the Senate. Originally intended to set up a new
Department of Homeland Security, the 484-page bill also provided for the biggest
reorganization in government since 1947. The last four sections of the bill,
(1714-1717) shielded the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits for injuries
caused by FDA-approved vaccines, such as mercury containing pediatric vaccines
associated with the development of autism.
Senators Lieberman, Daschle and Byrd proposed an amendment to strike out the
vaccine injury liability bailout but it was voted down 47-52. Reports have come
out of last minute deals between the White House and rebellious republicans
(Senators Snowe, Collins and Chafee) who threatened to vote for the Lieberman
amendment. Promises were made that in the new Congress a bill would be passed
that would allow existing lawsuits to continue but would bar all future
lawsuits.
After much debate the Homeland Security Bill passed the Senate. The four-day
debate was covered live on C-Span as Democrats and Republicans squared off on
this last minute provision that really had nothing to do with Homeland Security.
Articles ran on the front pages of major newspapers and headlined the evening
news.
Why do we need to preserve the right to bring a lawsuit when we have the VICP?
Children are required by law to be vaccinated before entering daycare, school or
college. This is a medical procedure that carries a risk of injury or death and
is performed on a healthy individual. There is great debate in the scientific
community about which vaccines cause injuries and what those injuries are. It is
going to take a long time for science to find all the answers. In the meantime,
if even a small percentage of children are injured by mercury, the MMR or any
other vaccine that our government requires parents to use, then those children
should be entitled to compensation and fair treatment within the system.
It would be the greatest injustice to require vaccination by law, knowing
that some children will be permanently brain-damaged or even die as a result and
then to single out these children and their parents to taking away their right
to common law protection from negligence or unreasonably dangerous products, and
making them the only group who do not have the right to go to court. That is
hardly real justice, nor good social policy.
The tort system serves to deter negligence and helps augment regulatory
incentives for safety. Without the threat of a lawsuit if the VICP does not
handle cases fairly or adequately, there is no incentive for drug companies to
make their vaccines as safe as possible. The drug companies end up with a
ready-made market and no liability.
What other provisions of the Homeland Security Act are troubling? Section 304
of the bill removed from the states their historic control over public health
laws, including vaccination laws, and handed it over to federal health
officials. This section allows the Secretary of DHHS to issue a "declaration"
after concluding that "an actual or potential bioterrorist incident" or "other
potential public health emergency" warrants the administration of "a substance
or substances" to "individuals during the effective period of the declaration."
The law provides for no exemptions to vaccination or medication and is expected
to override state public health and vaccine laws which currently provide medical
and/or religious exemptions to vaccination for school entry. This federal law
also does not preclude the use of the U.S. military to enforce the
administration of vaccines or other "substances" to individuals as ordered by
the Secretary of DHHS.
The Homeland Security Bill also eroded laws preventing the federal government
from conducting the people's business in secrecy, while creating new
opportunities for federal employees to look into the private lives of their
fellow citizens. Title 2 of the bill gives federal employees unchecked
surveillance power to access and track every American's email, internet use,
travel, credit card purchases, phone and bank records without a court order. The
public's right to know how government operates was also severely curtailed in
the bill with Section 214 gutting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which
has allowed the media and private citizens to obtain documents and transcripts
of federal health agency meetings such as the FDA and CDC Advisory Committees
which regulate vaccines and make vaccine policy.
What is the current status of Homeland Security revisions?
On January 10, 2003, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins
(R-Maine), and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) announced that they had reached an
agreement with Senate leadership to eliminate a provision aimed at limiting
liability for vaccine manufacturers.
The agreement also calls on the Senate to consider and pass comprehensive
reforms to the Vaccine Injury Compensation program in the next six months which
could lead to a removal of lawsuits from the VICP if the award is not adequate
or the case is lost.
In November, they secured the commitment of the Senate and House Majority
Leaders, the Speaker of the House, and the Vice President to address their
concerns in the Omnibus Appropriations bill to be considered by Congress later
this month.
Attempted Legislative Changes: NVIC worked hard for the passage of a
compensation program and we have continued to serve as the consumer watchdog on
the implementation and use of the program. As of 12/31/02 there have been 7580
claims filed. Awards total $1.4 Billion while nearly 2 out of 3 claimants lose
their case.
NVIC has been a staunch critic of the way the program operates and has worked
hard for administrative and legislative changes. Beginning in 1999, Congressman
Dan Burton, Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee investigated
problems in the VICP. A number of issues were identified that led to the
introduction of a bill in February 2002 by Congressman Dan Burton
(R-IN) and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA). The legislative reforms proposed
by Burton/Waxman included: · Extending the statute of limitations for filing a
petition in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to six years and
establishing a two-year window for families to file a petition if they were
previously excluded from the Program by the existing statute of limitations. ·
Increasing the compensation for vaccine-related deaths to $300,000; · Increasing
the compensation for lost earnings; · Including compensation for the costs of
family counseling and creating a guardianship; · Including payment of interim
attorneys fees and costs while a case is under review. In April 2002, Senator
Bill Frist (R-TN), introduced a bill that would eliminate all class action
vaccine lawsuits, eliminate loss of consortium claims, remove all state cases
into federal court, not allow interim attorney fees, not allow a one-time look
back provision, and provide the government alternate causes to help them
disprove causation. Neither of these two bills were passed but portions of the
Frist bill ended up in the Homeland Security Bill. All the more reason to
suspect that Senator Frist will attempt to give the drug companies an exclusive
remedy in the compensation program.
=============================================
News@909shot.com is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center
and is supported through membership donations. Learn more about vaccines,
diseases and how to protect your informed
consent rights