The WSJ Gets It Wrong on Vaccine Injury Reform
- Glen Sturtevant
- Aug 11
- 2 min read
The Wall Street Journal's editorial attacking RFK Jr. and the "trial bar" fundamentally misunderstands both the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the legitimate role attorneys play in protecting injured patients. The Journal claims trial lawyers want to "dismantle" the VICP for financial gain. This misses the point entirely. The VICP exists precisely because vaccines can cause injuries in rare instances, and injured patients deserve fair compensation. The problem isn't that the program exists, it's that the program is broken.
The Real VICP Problems
The Journal glosses over the failures that make VICP reform necessary. Cases routinely take years to resolve despite the statute’s original intention for resolution within 240 days. The program's vaccine injury table hasn't been meaningfully updated in decades despite new vaccines being added and new injuries being uncovered, leaving many legitimate injuries uncompensated. Special Masters are overwhelmed with caseloads, creating further delays. Most egregiously, COVID vaccine injuries are shunted into the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, a bureaucratic black hole that has compensated virtually no one despite thousands of claims. This isn't "liability shield" protection; it's liability shield abandonment of injured patients.
The Attorney Fee Strawman
The Journal attacks attorneys for wanting "bigger payouts" and contingency fees. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of VICP practice. The program already pays reasonable attorney fees directly, preventing conflicts between lawyers and clients over fee splits. Attorneys advocating for injured clients aren't trying to get rich, they're trying to get their clients the compensation Congress intended. The Journal's concern about "enriching the personal-injury bar" rings hollow when the alternative is leaving vaccine-injured patients without legal representation in a complex federal program designed to be navigated with counsel.
What Reform Actually Looks Like
Secretary Kennedy's proposed reforms address real problems: updating the vaccine injury table, streamlining the claims process, and ensuring COVID vaccine injuries receive fair consideration. These are common-sense fixes to a program that should work better for injured patients.
The Journal worries that reform might "bankrupt" the trust fund. But the fund is financed by a 75-cent excise tax on every vaccine sold, which is a sustainable funding mechanism that Congress can adjust if necessary. The goal should be adequately compensating legitimate injuries, not protecting the trust fund balance.
Missing the Forest for the Trees
The reality is that fair injury compensation actually supports vaccination programs by ensuring that the rare individuals harmed by vaccines aren't abandoned by the system. A well-functioning VICP enhances public confidence in vaccination by demonstrating that society takes responsibility for vaccine injuries when they occur. The current system's failures undermine that confidence more than any attorney advocacy ever could.
The Bottom Line
Trial lawyers didn't create the VICP's problems, they're trying to fix them for their clients. The Wall Street Journal's reflexive defense of a broken status quo serves neither injured patients nor public health. Secretary Kennedy's reform efforts deserve support, not editorial attacks that prioritize pharmaceutical industry interests over patient rights. Vaccine injury compensation should work for injured patients, not against them.
Comments