IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0233334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: A review and survey of implementing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Randy G Mungwira
  • Christine Guillard
  • Adiela Saldaña
  • Nobuhiko Okabe
  • Helen Petousis-Harris
  • Edinam Agbenu
  • Lance Rodewald
  • Patrick L F Zuber

Abstract

To update the landscape analysis of vaccine injuries no-fault compensation programmes, we conducted a scoping review and a survey of World Health Organization Member States. We describe the characteristics of existing no-fault compensation systems during 2018 based on six common programme elements. No-fault compensation systems for vaccine injuries have been developed in a few high-income countries for more than 50 years. Twenty-five jurisdictions were identified with no-fault compensation programmes, of which two were recently implemented in a low- and a lower-middle-income country. The no-fault compensation programmes in most jurisdictions are implemented at the central or federal government level and are government funded. Eligibility criteria for vaccine injury compensation vary considerably across the evaluated programmes. Notably, most programmes cover injuries arising from vaccines that are registered in the country and are recommended by authorities for routine use in children, pregnant women, adults (e.g. influenza vaccines) and for special indications. A claim process is initiated once the injured party or their legal representative files for compensation with a special administrative body in most programmes. All no-fault compensation programmes reviewed require standard of proof showing a causal association between vaccination and injury. Once a final decision has been reached, claimants are compensated with either: lump-sums; amounts calculated based on medical care costs and expenses, loss of earnings or earning capacity; or monetary compensation calculated based on pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent impairment or loss of function; or combination of those. In most jurisdictions, vaccine injury claimants have the right to seek damages either through civil litigation or from a compensation scheme but not both simultaneously. Data from this report provide an empirical basis on which global guidance for implementing such schemes could be developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Randy G Mungwira & Christine Guillard & Adiela Saldaña & Nobuhiko Okabe & Helen Petousis-Harris & Edinam Agbenu & Lance Rodewald & Patrick L F Zuber, 2020. "Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: A review and survey of implementing countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233334
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233334&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0233334?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233334. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.