This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Law and Medicine  • Immunization  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, MPhil; Troyen A. Brennan, MD, JD, MPH

JAMA. 2005;294:1817-1820.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Concerns have arisen that the paucity of suppliers of influenza vaccine for the US market, which contributed to the shortage of vaccine in 2004, is largely attributable to the legal liability that vaccine manufacturers face. For instance, in October 2004, President Bush signed into law the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004,¹ adding influenza vaccine to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), the administrative scheme that is the first-line legal remedy for certain vaccine-related injuries. Although the introduction of the bill predated the 2004 flu vaccine shortage,^2-3 it presaged public concern about how the legal environment may be affecting vaccine supplies. In October, a nongovernmental organization called the Club for Growth ran a full-page newspaper advertisement⁴ that read, "Can’t get a flu shot? Thank the trial lawyers." In the presidential debates, President Bush commented that manufacturers have . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Legacy of Litigation and the No-Fault Alternative

Author Affiliations: Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health (Drs Mello and Brennan) and Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (Dr Brennan), Boston, Mass.