Tort shield is wrong defense against flu
<<< Back to Vaccines
In fact, shielding drug manufacturers from lawsuits could actually reduce
the number of Americans who get flu shots in an emergency. That's not the
trial lawyers talking; it's the American Nurses Association, Consumers Union
and the American Public Health Association, groups that oppose the liability
shield.
www.startribune.com/stories/561/5767489.html
StarTribune
December 7, 2005
With a scary new strain of bird flu hopscotching across Asia, it's
encouraging that Congress and President Bush spent much of this fall working
up strategies to protect Americans from what could be a deadly influenza
pandemic.
One strategy on their list, however, should be dumped: Giving vaccine
manufacturers sweeping protection against lawsuits filed by injured
patients.
Public-health experts say offering such liability protection would actually
decrease the number of Americans who seek flu shots in a crisis without
doing much to increase the number of vaccine manufacturers.
We trust that members of the Minnesota delegation won't get hoodwinked into
supporting this wrongheaded idea as the year's congressional session draws
to a close.
The premise behind the liability shield is familiar, even plausible:
American drugmakers have been pulling out of the vaccine business for the
last 20 years, and fear of lawsuits must be one reason. But that argument
falls apart on close examination. A recent study in the Journal of the
American Medical Association found only 10 lawsuits in the last 20 years
over flu vaccines; the authors have concluded that drug companies withdrew
from the vaccine business mainly because of low-profit margins and
unpredictable demand.
In fact, shielding drug manufacturers from lawsuits could actually reduce
the number of Americans who get flu shots in an emergency. That's not the
trial lawyers talking; it's the American Nurses Association, Consumers Union
and the American Public Health Association, groups that oppose the liability
shield.
Why? Every vaccine, no matter how effective, will cause side effects or
adverse reactions in a small number of patients. Public-health experts know
this, and they say there must be some way to reassure or compensate those
who might be injured.
When the Bush administration encouraged first-responders to get smallpox
shots in 2003, for example, there was a huge backlash because there was no
compensation program for the small number of recipients who might suffer
adverse reactions.
All this is no secret to public-health officials, which is why Congress
established the Vaccine Injury Compensation (VIC) Program in 1986. It
shields drug manufacturers from most lawsuits, but establishes a special
fund and a speedy no-fault court to compensate patients injured by a
vaccine.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has been arguing for months that the VIC, or
something like it, should be extended to any new federal pandemic vaccine
campaign. Instead, a handful of senators are clinging to the broad liability
shield and planning to attach it to a defense spending bill that Congress
must pass this month. That would be a shameless favor to the drug industry
and a dangerous sellout of public health.
