Sigh. Didn’t you know that vaccine manufacturers have had immunity from lawsuit in America since 1988? That’s when the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was instituted.

Over the past 12 years, the VICP has succeeded in providing a less adversarial, less expensive and less time-consuming system of recovery than the traditional tort system that governs medical malpractice, personal injury and product liability cases. More than 1,500 people have been paid in excess of $1.18 billion since the inception of the program in 1988.

Sounds like the sort of program you want to replace malpractice in general. Just goes to show that high prices, low availability, and other ills have their origin somewhere else than malpractice torts.

And Overlawyered is full of ,,, something other than lawyers. Why else would they reach back to 1980 for evidence of a contemporary problem?

One of the many hits was this one:

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/April/09/BillToNullify9.htm

Describing some of the cases that skirt out of the NVICP.

Also of interest was a proposal to increase the cap on pain and suffering under NVICP from $250K to $350K.

What a concept. A cap on pain and suffering.

Oh, of course. This is a government program.

Bernie, VCIP does not apply to flu vaccines, AFAIK. This is copied from your link:

“Vaccines covered under the program include those that protect against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), and polio. The program continues to evolve consistent with medical science, and recently, HHS expanded coverage to four new vaccines: hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), Hemophilus influenzae type b, and rotavirus; pneumococcal vaccine will soon be covered, too.”

Note that Hemophilus influenzae type B is not the same as influenza virus.

So VCIP certainly seems relevant to the overall discussion of vaccines and legal liability, but seems not to apply in the specific case of influenza vaccine.

Glad to see you’ve gone from “immunity” to “severely restricted”.

Aware of the code, Bernie. You were trying to imply that it is impossible to sue vaccine manufacturers. It is quite possible, and the law firms found in a search seem to be quite proud of their success when they get around NVICP.

Got to agree, though, the tort bar is not the ONLY reason the vaccine industry has been driven from our shores, but it is one of many factors.

A commodity business, low reimbursement from Medicare, inherent business risk (don’t sell the vaccine this year, you throw it out). The technology is supposed to change, or so I understand, so no one wants to invest in soon-to-be-obsolete plants.

Overlawyered is, of course, a thinly veiled propaganda site for the insurance lobby. You go there to find “ammunition”, no matter how weak, for the evils of lawyers and litigation. You don’t go there in search of truth. But you probably already know that.

So “overlawyered” tells us about problems associated with the pertussis vaccine (which, last I checked, is readily available), and we are supposed to conclude that somehow lawyers are responsible for the shortage of the flu vaccine? How stupid and flawed is *that* reasoning.

Anybody who is even slightly informed on the issues knows that the primary reason for a flu vaccine shortage is the combination of a screw-up by a major manufacturer, and the low profit margin associated with vaccine production. Make the flu vaccine as profitable as, say, Viagra (or Vioxx, assuming they can successfully suppress negative health information), and pharmaceutical companies will be lining up to start production.