Understanding the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: What It Is, Why It Matters, and What’s at Stake

The Partnership to Fight Infectious Disease (PFID) convened a Congressional briefing on June 16 with experts in medicine, law, patient advocacy, and policy to examine one of the federal government’s most important public health programs: the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

For almost 40 years, the VICP has operated as a reliable no-fault system for compensating individuals who experience rare cases of vaccine-related injuries. Recently, however, the program has come under attack from critics who seek to undermine its purpose and effectiveness.

The panel discussion in front of a standing-room-only audience featured:

• Lynn Albizo, Chief Public Policy Officer, Immune Deficiency Foundation

• Dr. Michael C. Burgess, physician and former U.S. Congressman (R-TX)

• Renee Gentry, Director, Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University School of Law

• Richard Kingham, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP

“[The VICP is] one of the most important, but perhaps one of the least understood. public health programs that the federal government operates today,” said Candace DeMatteis, PFID’s Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, who moderated the discussion.

As misleading and inaccurate information swirls, the conversation served to clarify misconceptions and help policymakers and their staff better understand the VICP.  

How does the VICP ensure vaccines remain available, accessible, and affordable? What are meaningful opportunities to enhance and build on the program’s successes? These are just some of the questions the panel answered.

Watch the full recording here and read below for a snapshot of the conversation.

Why the VICP Was Created

Kingham, one of the architects of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, explained that Congress enacted the VICP in response to growing liability concerns that threatened vaccine supply and manufacturer participation.

Like any medical product or treatment, vaccines carry a small risk of adverse events, and rare injuries can occur. Since the VICP officially began accepting claims in 1988, it has awarded compensation for 12,588 petitions – a rate of 1 individual with a vaccine-related injury per every 1 million doses.

Congress created the VICP so people with legitimate claims could act without having to prove fault or to pay attorney fees. The program also created more market stability for manufacturers to keep vaccines available and affordable. Congress structured the VICP to help preserve access while providing people injured a quicker and more certain pathway to receiving compensation.

How the Program Works

Gentry, whose represents injured patients in the VICP process, addressed several common misconceptions.

Most importantly, she emphasized that VICP decisions should not be interpreted as evidence of vaccine safety or danger. The program is designed to resolve individual claims, not to serve as a scientific assessment of vaccines.

She also clarified that patients seeking claims through the VICP are not “anti-vaccine,” but are people who sought out vaccination and were injured.

The program does not eliminate the right to sue, she said, and people who are not satisfied with the outcome may opt out and pursue civil litigation.

Opportunities for Improvement

Panelists noted that the VICP is under increasing strain from the growth in the case load, delays and administrative backlogs.

The program originally covered six vaccines and now covers 16 vaccines. The statute, however, still limits it to eight “special masters” responsible for managing and reviewing cases. Delays become more likely when claims pile up. With roughly 4,500 active cases, the system is stretched thin.

The experts on PFID’s panel called for targeted updates, including additional special masters and modernized infrastructure. Former Rep. Burgess encouraged his colleagues to pursue policies that strengthen and improve the system without reshaping it in ways that would overwhelm its ability to help patients.

But be wary of misguided reform efforts, they warned. The resurfacing of long-debunked myths about connections between vaccination and autism and pressures to expand the Vaccine Injury Table by more than 300 conditions would be detrimental.  Such expansion – especially for claims about autism, which dozens of studies over decades have proven no connection to vaccines – would dramatically widen presumptions of injury without a scientific basis and dismantle the program’s pathway to compensate legitimate claims.

Why It Matters

Albizo, who also leads the Immunocompromised Collaborative, recognized that vaccine policy has real consequences for people who cannot be vaccinated themselves. For up to 7 million immunocompromised Americans, protection depends on high vaccination coverage in the broader community.

The panel’s message was clear: The VICP remains a bipartisan success that supports vaccine access and compensation for injury. Any changes should seek to modernize the operation to meet current needs, not dismantle the structure and purpose that’s served Americans for decades. In an environment of rising vaccine skepticism, preserving that balance is more important than ever.