Payments for COVID vaccine injuries are ending. Patients want that changed

Patients, academics and an independent MP are calling for the federal government to extend and expand compensation for people who experienced severe reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, amid concerns the scheme was poorly managed and unfairly narrow in scope.

Since opening in December 2021, the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme has received 4426 claims and paid $29.8 million to 378 claimants. There were 663 claims still being assessed this week, ahead of the scheme’s closure next month.

People receiving the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine at the Melbourne Exhibition Centre vaccination hub in August 2021.Credit: Penny Stephens

Last year, the Sun-Herald reported thousands of people were experiencing long delays to receive the outcomes of claims for compensation after being diagnosed with conditions recognised by the scheme.

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine compensation scheme covers losses or expenses of $1000 or more from injury resulting in hospitalisation or death from a list of 11 specific severe reactions to a COVID-19 vaccine.

While many people experienced flu-like symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination, the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s safety reports show severe reactions were extremely rare.

Of the more than 68 million doses administered in Australia by November 2023, only 9300 were “associated” with hospital admission, which does not guarantee the vaccine caused the admission. The incidents were overwhelmingly following patients’ initial doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

A new report by UNSW’s Centre for Social Impact reviewed more than 700 rare adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines recorded in peer-reviewed medical journals, claiming there was a “gross misalignment between the very limited approved range of serious adverse events included in the Australian compensation scheme, and the medical evidence”.

The report was produced in partnership with Coverse, a patient-led charity for Australians who experienced a significant reaction to their COVID-19 vaccine.

Lead author UNSW Professor Gemma Carey, who herself had a severe reaction to the AstraZeneca vaccine, said the scheme had been inflexible to the point of being unworkable.

“These are people who are severely sick, unable to work, and face financial ruin. The safety net just isn’t there,” she said.

University of Sydney School of Public Health vaccine confidence researcher Professor Julie Leask said she also believed the scheme should be reviewed. However, she disagreed that the report had shown the scope of the scheme was too narrow.

“Case studies are the lowest form of evidence,” she said of the incidents reviewed by the report.

“They are important because they might suggest there is a problem, but they don’t show a causal link.”

University of Sydney senior lecturer and public health vaccination expert Professor Nick Wood agreed the standard of evidence in the Coverse paper was low, pointing instead to work by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released in April, which identified 20 reactions caused by COVID-19 vaccines, but 65 where the link was inconclusive or rejected.

The UNSW report’s authors said they selected their sample to show the breadth of reactions being investigated by the medical community.

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine injury scheme will stop accepting claims on September 30.

“Claims submitted by that date will continue to be assessed in line with the scheme policy,” a spokesperson for the federal Department of Health and Aged Care said.

Both Leask and Wood would like to see Australia develop a more general vaccination compensation scheme, as exists in other OECD countries.

Leask said having a well-run, trusted scheme for people who experienced a rare adverse effect was important to uphold the “social contract” of vaccination for the good of the community, and foster public confidence in vaccination. She said the months-long wait times for people with legitimate claims under this scheme were unacceptable.

“But one of the challenges of having a strong compensation scheme is you do need to be careful in determining which reactions are being compensated,” she said.

University of Western Australia medico-legal academic Associate Professor Marco Rizzi said the closed list of reactions in Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine claim scheme was too inflexible. Internationally, he said, some schemes were based on a causal inquiry, where physicians established a link between vaccination and the injury.

“You have a claims scheme of this kind because it is supposed to be easier than litigation,” he said.

“One of the key drivers of a vaccine claim scheme is to make it quick, and from that perspective the [Australian] scheme has failed.”

In a foreword to the UNSW paper, independent member for Kooyong and Melbourne doctor Monique Ryan called on the federal government to revise and reopen the scheme, instead of shutting it down.

“Our government owes a debt to those few who suffered injury from those medications,” she wrote.

“Surveillance and compensation schemes are important for ensuring trust in the system and accountability of institutions.”

Health Minister Mark Butler referred questions about the criticisms raised by the report, and suggestions that the scheme should be revised, to the department, which did not directly answer them.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.