Is the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) truly operating at arm’s length from the government? Documents obtained through Access to Information requests are raising questions about the independence of Oxaro, the third-party administrator overseeing the program, which is supposed to offer financial support to individuals harmed by vaccines.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has consistently stated that Oxaro is an “independent 3rd party administrator.” This separation, they argue, is crucial to avoid any conflict of interest, given PHAC’s dual role in promoting and approving vaccines while also managing a program that compensates for potential adverse effects.
“VISP is being administered and delivered independently by Oxaro,” PHAC maintains.
However, evidence suggests a more intertwined relationship than publicly acknowledged. Internal communications and funding agreements reveal regular consultations between PHAC and Oxaro, particularly when addressing media inquiries or parliamentary questions related to VISP claims. These interactions extend beyond simple information sharing, hinting at a coordinated approach to managing the program’s public image.
The core dilemma: Can an administrator be considered truly independent if it regularly consults with the very agency whose actions its program is designed to scrutinize? This question is particularly pertinent given the sensitive nature of vaccine injury claims and the potential for public mistrust.
Adding fuel to the fire, a 2021 funding agreement between PHAC and Oxaro (then operating as Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Consulting) outlines a commitment to jointly develop a “litigation-management plan.” According to the document, this plan aims to “mitigat[e] risk of litigation” against both the agency and the company.
This raises a crucial question: why would an independent administrator, tasked with impartially assessing claims, need to collaborate with PHAC on strategies to prevent lawsuits? Critics argue that such collaboration undermines the program’s objectivity and creates the appearance of a system designed to protect the government’s interests rather than support injured individuals. Some claim it suggests a preemptive effort to shield PHAC from accountability, potentially influencing the outcome of claims.
The implications are far-reaching. Concerns about VISP’s impartiality could further erode public trust in vaccination programs, particularly among those already hesitant about vaccines. A sense of fairness and transparency is vital for any compensation program, but especially one linked to public health initiatives.
Competing Perspectives:
- PHAC’s View: Stresses the importance of Oxaro’s independent role in administering VISP, designed to provide fair compensation.
- Critics’ View: Argue that the collaborative efforts between PHAC and Oxaro, especially regarding litigation management, compromise the program’s independence and transparency.
- Claimants’ Concerns: Share stories of difficulty navigating the system, long waits, and denied claims, fuelling skepticism about the program’s fairness.
For families seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries, these revelations are deeply troubling. Sarah Jenkins, whose child experienced a severe reaction after a vaccination, expressed her frustration on X.com. “We’ve been fighting for months,” she wrote. “This feels like they’re rigging the system against us.” Her post resonated with many others who shared similar experiences and anxieties about the process.
Reached for comment, Oxaro directed all questions to PHAC. When pressed about the implications of the litigation-management plan, Oxaro stated, “This question should be adddressed to PHAC.” This response has done little to quell concerns about its independence.
Several injured parties have voiced frustration, with delays and denials seeming arbitrary. It’s a sytem that is supposed to provide relief, but for many, it has become another hurdle in their recovery.
The lack of clear answers from both PHAC and Oxaro has only intensified scrutiny of the program. For some, it is another example of government secrecy. For others, it highlights the complex relationship between public health authorities and private contractors. “Suddenly, the landscape changed,” says local resident Maria Sanchez, who closely follows the debate on VISP’s transparency. “It makes you wonder who is really looking out for the people.”
The situation leaves the Canadian public at a crossroads. On one hand, there is a clear need for a program that supports those who experience adverse reactions to vaccines, fostering confidence in public health initiatives. On the other hand, the perceived lack of transparency and the questions surrounding VISP’s independence risk undermining that very confidence. A serious issue.
A call for action is gaining momentum. Some are demanding a thorough review of VISP’s governance structure and a clearer definition of the relationship between PHAC and Oxaro. Others are pushing for greater transparency in the claims process, including access to data on claim outcomes and the reasoning behind decisions.
The path forward requires a commitment to open communication, accountability, and a genuine dedication to ensuring that VISP serves its intended purpose: to provide fair and impartial support to those injured by vaccines, fostering trust in Canada’s commitment to public health.