Mandatory immunization and vaccine injury support programs: A survey of 28 GNN countries

Despite the proposed ethical link between mandatory immunization and Vaccine Injury Support Programs (VISPs), relatively few jurisdictions, even those with mandatory immunization, have implemented such programs. Although it may be assumed that individuals injured by a vaccine in a non-VISP country receive less support than in countries possessing such programs, the extent of the discrepancy is not clear; nor is the nature of any discrepancy.

In our 2018 survey of 28 Global NITAG (National Immunization Technical Advisory Group) Network (GNN) countries, we asked respondents about mandatory immunization and the availability of VISPs. Responses were supplemented with desktop research and review of scholarly literature for further information regarding VISP availability and details.

Although only two of 14 (14%) surveyed jurisdictions with mandatory immunization had formal VISPs, responses from additional countries suggested the presence of less formal avenues of compensation for serious Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs); similarly, we found five of 15 (33%) of countries without mandatory immunization had implemented formal VISPs, but another three such countries suggested similar informal methods of compensation.

From our data, it is evident that at least some countries with mandatory immunization may discharge their (perceived or actual) ethical obligation to provide financial assistance to vaccine-injured individuals through more informal avenues rather than structured VISPs, although the extent and impact of this practice is by its nature difficult to assess. Further, the nature of VISPs may vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and simple VISP/non-VISP classification of jurisdiction may fail to capture nuance in support for AEFI victims in many jurisdictions. Future assessments of VISPs should consider the possibility of these more informal avenues of support for vaccine injuries.