Skip to main content
. 2020 May 21;15(5):e0233334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233334

Table 2. Characteristics of existing no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries.

VICP element Programme attribute Number of countries (N = 23 programmes*)
Admin Central Government only 15 (65%)
Provincial Government 3 (13%)
Insurance sector 2 (9%)
Combination of the above 3 (13%)
Funding source Government only 15 (65%)
Other sources** 8 (35%)
Eligibility: vaccines Registered/recommended vaccines 13 (57%)
Mandatory vaccines 5 (22%)
Based on diseases listed in legislation 2 (9%)
Non-NIP vaccines*** 1 (4%)
No information 2 (9%)
Eligibility: injured party All injured by a vaccine administered within jurisdiction 15 (65%)
Country citizens only 3 (13%)
Province residents only 4 (17%)
No information 1 (4%)
Process and decision making Purely administrative process 18 (78%)
Combination of administrative and civil litigation processes 5 (22%)
Standard of proof Causal association to vaccination 16 (69%)
As determined by a group of experts 5 (22%)
No information 2 (9%)
Compensation Standardized compensation 10 (44%)
Case by case basis 12 (52%)
No information 1 (4%)
litigation rights Vaccine injury compensation scheme alone 6 (26%)
Both vaccine compensation schemes and tort law or civil claims are allowed 15 (65%)
No information 2 (9%)

*22 jurisdictions evaluated with 2 programmes from Japan resulting in 23 programmes evaluated.

** Other sources include: Pharmaceutical company contribution i.e. the USA, China for non-NIP vaccine injuries, Japan for non-NIP injuries; Insurance: Finland, Norway, and Sweden have special insurance funds where all pharmaceutical companies in their jurisdiction contribute towards. France complements Gov. funding with national health insurance, Latvia has treatment risk fund.

***China, Republic of Korea, Japan—separate system for non-NIP vaccines (detailed information available only for Japan).

Limited in some jurisdiction i.e. USA