No-fault compensation must apply to all vaccines: RACGP

New


The call comes more than six weeks after the prime minister announced the program, for which details have yet to be released.

According to the RACGP, a no-fault vaccine compensation scheme would protect the entire community, while building confidence in the immunization program.


The RACGP said the development and implementation of a No-Fault Vaccine Injury Compensation System (VICS) should extend to all vaccines listed in the national immunization schedule, not just those approved for use. COVID-19.

In its submission, published Aug. 10, the college says the increased risk of developing thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following the AstraZeneca vaccine has “fueled the concerns of general practitioners and the community,” and that a VICS Without fail could promote renewed confidence in the national rollout of the COVID vaccine.

He argues that the potential benefits of the diet extend to:

  • protect the community at large
  • ensure fair compensation for injuries caused by the vaccine
  • build confidence in vaccinations
  • increasing uptake of immunization programs.

According to the position statement, a VICS would compensate people who develop a “vaccine injury after receiving properly manufactured vaccines.”

Meanwhile, a no-fault policy is classified as an “insurance policy or compensation plan that is valid whether the claimant is at fault or not”.

The RACGP notes that while vaccination is “a safe and effective way to prevent serious illness,” and most vaccine reactions “are minor and do not cause long-term injury,” that the absence of a VICS means the small number of people who sustain an injury from the vaccine “will not receive compensation for their injury through a national compensation scheme”.

“At the population level, the very low risk of injury from individual vaccine is offset by the significant and continuing benefits of widespread vaccination of the population,” the statement said.

“However, this can sometimes mean that a significant burden, i.e. injury from the vaccine, is imposed on an individual for the protective benefit that vaccines provide to the rest of the Australian population.”

It was in 2015 that the Standing Senate Committee on Community Affairs recommended that the Australian government investigate the merits of a national vaccine compensation scheme, as part of its investigation into the Amendment to the legislation on social services (No jab, no salary) Bill 2015.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent roll-out of the National COVID-19 Vaccination Program have rekindled calls for a no-fault VICS in Australia,” the statement said.

The RACGP supports the introduction of a VICS, on the basis that:

  • vaccination greatly benefits the population, as well as the individual
  • vaccinations carry a very low risk of serious side effects
  • The government should compensate people who experience a serious adverse reaction in the interests of protecting the wider community, improving confidence in vaccinations and increasing uptake of vaccination programs.

The college notes that various VICS have become commonplace in many countries around the world, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, several European countries, and Japan.

Based on its experience, in order to successfully implement a VICS, the RACGP indicates that the eligibility criteria, the standard of proof and the remuneration should be taken into account “in accordance with the expectations of the community. “.

The college notes that the eligibility criteria for VICS vary considerably from country to country.

Notably, most VICS include injuries caused by vaccines that are registered in the country and that are recommended by authorities for routine use in children, adults [eg influenza vaccines], pregnant women and for special indications, ”the statement said.

“Most countries have a time limit on eligibility, either from the date of vaccination or from the initial onset of vaccine injury symptoms.”

All VICS would also require a “standard of evidence” that shows there is a “causal association between injury and vaccination”, which often uses the “balance of probabilities” approach.

“This approach considers whether it is ‘more likely than not’ that the injury was caused by the vaccine, taking into account factors such as medical evidence, time of injury, nature of vaccine and others. supporting information, “the statement read.

Compensation can be provided for medical expenses, disability pensions, coverage for non-economic losses and death benefits.

“In most jurisdictions, individuals have the right to seek damages either through VICS or civil litigation, but not both simultaneously.”

Log in below to join the conversation.



AstraZeneca COVID-19 No-fault Compensation Plan Pfizer VICS Vaccines Position Statement


newsGP weekly poll
How often do patients fail to disclose their respiratory symptoms during triage?


Source link