Oxaro Inc., the consulting firm managing Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), says it “continues to adapt” its approach in response to ongoing scrutiny. The firm’s management of the program has drawn sharp criticism from claimants and advocacy groups, citing lengthy delays and opaque decision-making processes.
In a written statement provided in response to a 15-page letter of queries, Oxaro addressed concerns surrounding the program’s efficiency and fairness. The statement, delivered via an anonymous “VISP feedback” email address, emphasized that VISP is a “new and demand-based program” facing a fluctuating number of applications and appeals. The firm acknowledged the impact of claim volume on processing times.
“Timelines for a determination of eligibility and support will depend on the nature and complexity of the claim. All claims will be individually assessed by medical experts,” the statement read.
However, for many families, these words offer little comfort. Sarah Jenkins, whose son developed a rare neurological condition following a vaccination, described her experience as a nightmare. “It started quietly, almost unnoticed,” she said, recounting the gradual onset of symptoms. “Now, we’re fighting a system that seems designed to deny, not to help.”
The core problem lies in the perceived lack of transparency and accountability within the VISP. Claimants frequently express frustration at the difficulty in obtaining clear explanations for rejected claims and the anonymity of the medical experts involved in the review process.
Oxaro’s proposed solution involves ongoing adaptation of its processes, in collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), based on the number of applications and appeals received. The firm also highlighted that all amounts invoiced are governed by contractual agreement, reflecting actual costs with supporting documentation reviewed and approved by PHAC.
The expected outcome, according to Oxaro, is a more efficient and fair system that provides timely support to eligible claimants. However, whether these adaptations will translate into tangible improvements for families remains to be seen.
One point of contention has been the handling of claimant feedback. Oxaro revealed that a paper survey tested with 50 claimants in 2024 yielded no responses. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the firm’s efforts to solicit and incorporate feedback from those most affected by the program’s decisions.
- Program is new and demand-based.
- Timelines depend on claim complexity.
- Volume of claims impacts processing.
- All cases are treated fairly.
The company statement included slightly different versions of the same sentiment regarding fair treatment:
- We aim at providing a process that ensures that all cases are treated fairly and with the same care, respect, and due diligence.
- Our process ensures that all cases are treated fairly and with the same care, respect, and due diligence.
This wording, while seemingly innocuous, has been criticized by some as being repetitive and lacking concrete details on how fairness is ensured in practice. One disgruntled user on X.com posted, “Same care, respect, and due diligence? Prove it! Show us the data!” A comment on Facebook echoed the sentiment: “Talk is cheap. Where’s the action?”
Adding to the controversy, a number of former Oxaro employees have reportedly come forward with allegations of systemic inefficiencies and biases within the VISP. Oxaro declined to comment on these specific allegations, citing confidentiality concerns.
Another point of discussion has been the identity of the medical experts involved in claim reviews. Oxaro stated that while the decision letter sent to claimants includes the composition of the medical review board by areas of specialization, the individual doctors’ identities are withheld for “privacy and security reasons.” Some claimants have argued that this lack of transparency hinders their ability to challenge the medical assessments used to deny their claims. It may be percieved as a cop out.
While acknowledging the challenges, Oxaro maintains that it is committed to providing a fair and efficient process for all VISP claimants. The firm insists that amounts invoiced are not based on the number of claims received and that all financial transactions are governed by a contractual agreement, with detailed documentation reviewed and approved by PHAC. Critics however, point out the lack of consistancy between the invoiced amounts and the support actually delivered to suffering families.
Moving forward, it is critical that Oxaro prioritizes transparency, responsiveness, and accountability in its management of the VISP. The firm must take concrete steps to address the concerns raised by claimants and ensure that the program serves its intended purpose: to provide timely and adequate support to those who have suffered adverse events following vaccination.
One thing is certian: The stakes are high.