Kennedy has called the programme corrupt and ineffective. Photo credit: Juli Hansen
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the new United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, has announced his intention to overhaul the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme (VICP). While Kennedy has framed the initiative as an effort to “fix” a system he calls broken, medical and legal experts warn that the reforms he is suggesting could dramatically weaken or even dismantle a cornerstone of American vaccine policy.
The VICP was created in 1986 after a series of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers threatened to drive companies out of the US market. The programme provides a no-fault route for individuals who claim to have suffered injury from routine vaccines. Rather than pursuing manufacturers in court, petitioners bring their case before special masters in the Court of Federal Claims. Compensation is funded by a small excise tax on vaccines. Kennedy has long criticised the programme. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) in July, he called it “corrupt and inefficient” and pledged to fix it. In recent weeks he has reiterated this position, saying that his department will work with the Department of Justice to realign the programme with what he views as its original purpose. The details remain unclear, but comments from Kennedy and his allies have prompted fears that compensation could be curtailed or the system significantly weakened.
According to reports in the Guardian, Kennedy has floated the possibility of eliminating compensation altogether, though he has not explicitly stated that this is his intention. What is evident is that he views the current framework as unsustainable. Reuters notes that he has accused the VICP of being “captured” by special interests and of failing both claimants and taxpayers.
Experts strongly disagree with the notion of abolition. Writing in Stat News, bioethicist Arthur Caplan and law professor Dorit Reiss argue that dismantling the VICP would harm not only those seeking redress but also the wider public. Without a reliable compensation mechanism, claimants would face lengthy, expensive litigation in civil courts. At the same time, manufacturers could once again withdraw from the vaccine market, as happened in the 1980s, threatening supply and undermining public health. ProPublica has also highlighted the risks of sweeping reform. If the programme were to expand eligibility too broadly, it could quickly exhaust its trust fund. Conversely, if compensation were restricted or removed, individuals injured by vaccines could be left without realistic avenues for redress, fuelling mistrust in vaccination.
Most experts agree that the VICP is not perfect and is in need of updates. The University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation points out that caps on compensation have not been adjusted for inflation, and backlogs have left families waiting years for resolution. KFF Health News notes that Kennedy is correct in identifying inefficiencies, but warns that his rhetoric suggests more radical change than is needed. The consensus among public health specialists is that targeted reforms, such as modernising compensation limits, increasing resources to reduce delays, and improving transparency, would strengthen the programme without jeopardising its core function. Removing or drastically weakening the VICP, however, would represent a major step backwards in vaccine policy. The debate over the VICP comes at a time of heightened sensitivity around vaccines in the United States. Kennedy, a longstanding critic of vaccination, was appointed to the cabinet earlier this summer and his stance has already proved controversial. According to AP News, his department is now formally reviewing the structure of the programme in collaboration with the Department of Justice, but no timetable has been set for legislative proposals.
The prospect of dismantling or curtailing the VICP has alarmed not only public health experts but also legal scholars and patient advocates. They argue that weakening protections for vaccine recipients could erode public confidence, discourage uptake, and threaten herd immunity. It could also re-expose manufacturers to costly litigation, repeating the crises of the past.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has pledged to “fix” the Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme, but his approach remains vague and fraught with controversy. While reforms to address inefficiency and outdated provisions are widely acknowledged as necessary, the possibility of reducing or eliminating compensation raises profound concerns. Experts warn that such measures would harm injured individuals, destabilise vaccine supply, and undermine public trust. As the review process unfolds, the future of the VICP stands as a critical test of the Kennedy administration’s handling of public health policy and of its willingness to balance reform with the need to protect both individuals and the broader population.
