Covid Archives - 51视频 Health News /tag/covid/ 51视频 Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of 51视频. Fri, 31 Jul 2026 22:27:09 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.6 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Covid Archives - 51视频 Health News /tag/covid/ 32 32 161476233 Journalists Catch You Up on Fauci Hearing, Peptides, and Kids’ Caffeine Consumption /on-air/on-air-august-1-2026-fauci-hearing-fda-peptides-epa-grants-children-caffeine/ Sat, 01 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1658809

Céline Gounder, 51视频 Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed how children’s caffeine consumption is affecting their health on CBS News’ CBS Mornings on July 30.

  • .

51视频 Health News senior correspondent Arthur Allen discussed the recent Anthony Fauci Senate hearing on CBS News 24/7 on July 29.

  • .

51视频 Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed the Fauci hearing on WBUR’s Here & Now on July 29. Rovner also discussed exceptional Affordable Care Act enrollment in New Mexico on KJZZ’s The Show on July 29.

  • .
  • .

51视频 Health News national public health correspondent Amy Maxmen discussed the FDA potentially easing restrictions on peptide drugs on CBS News 24/7 on July 24.

  • .

51视频 Health News Georgia correspondent聽Briah Lumpkins discussed the local impact of the loss of Environmental Protection Agency grant money on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on July 24.


51视频 Health News Hawai驶i correspondent Ashley Mizuo discussed the challenge of finding placement for prisoners after their compassionate release from detention on Hawai驶i Public Radio’s The Conversation on July 22.


51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
1658809
They Worked To Protect Public Health. Now They Want the Public鈥檚 Votes. /elections/election-midterms-candidates-becerra-acton-el-sayed-california-ohio-michigan/ Fri, 31 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2265943 A handful of former public health officials are campaigning for top statewide offices across the country, testing whether their experience with covid and other hot-button health issues will appeal to voters in November.

The officials, all Democrats, are running at a time when the Trump administration is reducing government funding for scientific research, restricting access to some vaccines, and making it more difficult for some Americans to obtain health insurance.

Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 3.14 Action, a political action committee that recruits Democratic candidates with science and health backgrounds, said it is unusual to see so many public health leaders running for office.

“But it’s not surprising given the moment we are living in, with an arsonist running HHS working to undermine the vaccine schedule and public health at large,” she said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a longtime anti-vaccine activist who disparaged public health measures implemented during the pandemic, going as far as calling the covid vaccine the “.”

Neither HHS nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

Several of the candidates benefit from name recognition built during the covid pandemic, political science scholars say, when daily news briefings from local health officials became must-see-TV for many citizens sheltering in place from the novel virus. But that cuts two ways.

While many Americans regarded public health officials as offering prudent advice and a steady voice, others criticized them for pushing school closures, mask mandates, and new, quickly created vaccines. The attacks have escalated under President Donald Trump, with Republicans targeting pandemic-era public health leaders such as Anthony Fauci and a former Fauci adviser even facing .

National polls show healthcare is for many voters this year, with Democrats most worried about costs and Republicans about fraud. But that’s no guarantee of victory. Nirav Shah, an epidemiologist who led Maine’s top public health agency through the pandemic, lost a narrow Democratic primary in the state governor’s race in June.

Here are some of the public health officials on the ballot this year:

Xavier Becerra, Running for Governor in California

A photo of former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra speaking in front of news reporters' microphones.
Xavier Becerra speaks to reporters in Los Angeles on Jan. 9. (David Crane/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images)

Becerra, who served as HHS secretary under President Joe Biden, is the highest-ranking former health official running this cycle. He won a crowded and expensive open primary and now faces Republican Steve Hilton, a British-born former Fox News host, in the general election.

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said with the pandemic in the rearview mirror, any judgment voters may have about the federal government’s response is more likely to reflect on Biden rather than Becerra, who has no medical background and maintained a low profile as HHS secretary.

Leading the nation’s health department as the pandemic lingered, Becerra focused more on expanding access to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, overseeing record numbers of people enrolled in the publicly financed programs during his tenure. He did face criticism over the processing and placement of a massive influx of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as his agency’s response to a baby 51视频 shortage brought on, in part, by major product recalls.

Becerra has said he now wants to be California’s “healthcare governor,” a mantle outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom tried to claim upon taking office in 2019.

Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Before becoming HHS secretary, Becerra served as California’s attorney general and sued the first Trump administration more than 100 times, leading a coalition of states against GOP efforts to gut the ACA. He also started a unit in his office focused solely on healthcare. During Becerra’s tenure, his office reached a $575 million antitrust settlement with the California hospital system Sutter Health, pursued pharmaceutical companies that delayed generic drugs, and helped block a Trump administration rule that let employers choose whether to cover .

Voters often regard decades of experience in government as a negative, Peterson said. But for the job of running the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, he added, “I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to have somebody who actually has run a big enterprise.”

In , Becerra has said California should maintain state-funded Medicaid coverage for immigrants without legal status. He is also a longtime supporter of implementing single-payer healthcare, though in recent interviews he has said it needs to be addressed at the federal level.

Amy Acton, Running for Governor in Ohio

Amy Acton stands, speaking to a crowd with a microphone. Around her, supporters hold signs that read, "Dr. Amy Acton for Governor."
Amy Acton addresses attendees at a campaign rally in Cincinnati on April 28. (Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

Acton ran Ohio’s health department from February 2019 to June 2020.

During the first months of the pandemic, Acton appeared at daily news conferences with the state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, that were jokingly dubbed “.” She earned fans with her calm and positive demeanor while explaining her approach to keeping covid at bay.

But she also attracted critics with her recommendations to stay at home, mask up, and shut down some businesses to curb the virus’ spread. Protesters even showed up at her home.

Acton’s Republican opponent in the governor’s race, Vivek Ramaswamy, has labeled her “Dr. Lockdown” on social media. His criticism of her role in shutting down businesses could prove effective with the economy at the top of many people’s minds, said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton political science professor.

“It’s a double-edged sword, because she also really upset some people,” Devine said of Acton’s time as the health director during the pandemic.

He said that is a tricky attack for Ramaswamy to pursue, though, because DeWine 鈥 still the sitting governor and a popular conservative figure 鈥 endorsed the covid measures Acton recommended, granting her emergency powers to sign the orders, and has since said he takes all responsibility for those actions.

For her part, Acton has done little on the campaign trail to highlight her time as the state’s public health director. Instead, she has focused more on healthcare affordability, highlighting the Trump-led cuts to Medicaid and the scaled-back subsidies for ACA plans that have resulted in dropping coverage in the state.

“I hear from families across Ohio that healthcare costs are rising and they just can’t keep up,” Acton said in an emailed statement. “That’s why I will fight to protect and expand access, reduce the price of prescription drugs, forgive medical debt holding Ohioans back, and lower premiums.”

Abdul El-Sayed, Running for U.S. Senate in Michigan

Abdul El-Sayed speaks on-stage at a venue. Behind him is a backdrop that reads, "Abdul for US Senate." Blurred in the foreground are the silhouettes of two heads of people watching El-Sayed speak.
Abdul El-Sayed at a campaign event in Ferndale, Michigan, on July 25. (Emily Elconin/Getty Images)

El-Sayed 鈥 who ran the health departments in the city of Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan 鈥 is one of two leading Democratic candidates for Senate. The primary is Aug. 4.

El-Sayed, a progressive, is facing off against Haley Stevens, a four-term congresswoman. They are vying to run against Republican nominee Mike Rogers, a former congressman, for the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Gary Peters.

From 2015 to 2017, El-Sayed ran the Detroit Health Department, which and privatized as part of the city’s 2013 bankruptcy. In his role, he led efforts to test Detroit schools for lead in the wake of the Flint water crisis and provide free eyeglasses to children in public schools.

From 2022 until 2025, he ran the health department in Wayne County, the state’s most populous county, which includes Detroit. In that job, he initiated a program to retire medical debt for thousands of residents and make naloxone available in public areas to reverse the effects of opioid overdoses.

In an interview with 51视频 Health News, El-Sayed said his public health experience helped him become an effective communicator and challenge corporations and the role they play in healthcare.

“Politics have become overrun by big money and corporations, and my training and background in public health has taught me to think about that and push back against it,” he said.

El-Sayed, who did not practice medicine after completing his residency and is not licensed to do so, has faced criticism from some in his party for calling himself a doctor.  

El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), supports “Medicare for All,” a policy favored by many progressives that would make more people eligible for the federal health program for people who are 65 and older or disabled.

David Dulio, a professor of political science at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, said that the broader economy, Trump’s tariffs, and trade are eclipsing healthcare this year as top concerns for voters in the state. But he added that “progressive stances such as Medicare for All are attractive in the Democratic primary electorate.”

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2265943
American Scientists See Prosecutions as Part of Federal Campaign Against Them /public-health/american-scientists-virologist-charges-mpox-samples-rocky-mountain-laboratories/ Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2260843 HAMILTON, Mont. 鈥 The Trump administration has stepped up arrests and public condemnation of federal scientists studying viruses as the world faces one of its worst Ebola epidemics.

In June, Vincent Munster, an infectious disease researcher at the National Institutes of Health, was charged with bringing biological specimens into the U.S. without proper documents. Weeks later, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) ordered Anthony Fauci, Munster’s former boss, to appear before a Senate committee, alleging that he’d lied to Congress about the covid-19 pandemic’s origins. This spring, the FBI detained a former aide to Fauci, and federal officials banned a virus researcher in North Carolina from receiving federal funding.

In each case, senior U.S. officials and members of Congress have leaned into unproven theories that arrogant scientists damaged rather than protected public health by recklessly experimenting with covid and other killer viruses, including in China.

Conservative groups and social influencers have amplified that view through a whirlwind of covid conspiracy theories, bioterrorism fearmongering, and anti-immigration sentiment. The recent charges stirred long-held mistrust of the high-security Rocky Mountain Laboratories, where Munster works, among residents of this blue-collar mountain town in Montana built on logging.

A dozen scientists interviewed for this article said that any crimes or errors committed by Munster, who was transporting vials of inactivated mpox for research purposes, seemed to be over paperwork and posed no threat to the public. Nonetheless, some colleagues in Montana said, the alleged improprieties needlessly bat a hornet’s nest.

“This just gives ammunition to the people that are trying to stop this valuable research,” said Kim Hasenkrug, a scientist emeritus at the NIH who worked at Rocky Mountain Labs for 31 years. “Even people who have trusted us in the past, this sows seeds of distrust. How could it not?”

Cuts to U.S. foreign aid and research funding have left tens of millions of dollars in gaps in the fight against spreading Ebola and mpox outbreaks, scientists told 51视频 Health News. “When the next pandemic comes around and we need vaccines to protect ourselves, the chances are that China will develop them before we do,” said Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at Scripps Research. Andersen co-authored studies that stoked the ire of proponents of the theory that a lab leak started the covid pandemic.

Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the NIH, said the federal government “remains fully equipped to protect Americans and respond to emerging public health threats.” She said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had deployed experts domestically and internationally to respond to Ebola.

Scientists like Munster are indispensable for figuring out the source of pandemic viruses, whether bats, pigs, rats, or some other animal, Andersen said. Munster “is the person who goes out to Africa to get samples of bad viruses from people,” said Stanley Perlman, a virologist at the University of Iowa and a longtime member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel. “He’s done lots of things that needed to be done, and he does them well.”

Authorities arrested Munster and Claude Kwe, a research fellow at Rocky Mountain Labs, June 2 on charges of conspiracy to smuggle mpox into the United States and lying to border agents. They had been stopped Jan. 25 at the Detroit airport after returning from the Republic of Congo.

A portrait of a man with blue eyes and a navy suit
Vincent Munster (National Institutes of Health)

The announcing the charges said FBI testing had confirmed the viruses were inactivated 鈥 Munster helped 鈥 but that the scientists jeopardized Americans’ safety.

“These NIH experts apparently broke our laws by smuggling viral pathogens on a packed commercial airplane from an outbreak in the Republic of Congo. Let that sink in,” said Jerome Gorgon, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The says Munster and Kwe falsely told customs agents the mpox specimens they brought back were for diagnostic use. Yet several scientists told 51视频 Health News that the specimens most likely were indeed for use in developing mpox diagnostic tests.

The complaint also states that the scientists lacked the appropriate documents. requires researchers to register and certify inactivated viruses.

“He is presumed innocent and we will have to await future proceedings before commenting,” Kwe’s federal community defender, Benton Martin, said of his client.

In Montana, Marshall Bloom, an associate director at Rocky Mountain Labs, told the Ravalli County Board of Health in a July meeting that the scientists have been suspended and aren’t allowed on campus amid an internal NIH investigation. “These are not trivial accusations,” Bloom said.

It is not illegal or unheard of to take an inactivated virus on a plane. If the samples were inactive, “the risk is zero,” said Daniel Jernigan, who worked for 26 years at the CDC and led its National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases until retiring last August.

“But you have to have the documentation available,” he added.

Jernigan recalled reprimands issued for this sort of lapse but knew of no arrests.

“In this climate,” Perlman said, “you’d want to make sure you talk to people at your institution to make sure any i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.”

Munster’s attorney didn’t respond to multiple interview requests.

Skeptical Neighbors

Conservative politicians and others skeptical of the nation’s covid response have had Munster and Rocky Mountain Labs on their radar for years.

The facility is in Hamilton, a town of 5,000 in rural Ravalli County, which gave President Donald Trump 69% of its vote in 2024. The lab got its start with studies of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in the 1900s, when ranchers and cattle were dying from the then-unknown disease.

Today it is a Biosafety Level 4 facility, one of only several dozen labs in the world to employ the highest level of safety controls that enable scientists to study the deadliest pathogens.

Munster and his laboratory of viral ecology are known as the “go-to group for highly dangerous viruses” such as Middle East respiratory syndrome, Nipah, Ebola, and bird flu, said zoologist Peter Daszak, whose work has also been targeted in recent years. Munster “goes into red zones,” gets samples from sick people, and makes diagnostic tests that help assess an outbreak and how to stop it, Daszak said.

Munster and his colleagues contributed to studies of , , and 鈥 work that put the lab in the crosshairs of people warning about the dangers of biomedical research.

In April, the White Coat Waste Project, a self-described government watchdog group to stop tax-funded animal testing, paid for billboards across seven cities with NIH-funded labs, including Hamilton.

The next month, about the investigation into Munster, citing an anonymous letter. That caught the attention of Laura Loomer, a far-right activist known as a loyalty enforcer for Trump who has the president’s ear. She posted about it to her 1.9 million followers on the social platform X.

“Fauci Holdovers at @NIH and @HHSGov are about to unleash Ebola in America,” Loomer posted on May 17, asking why Munster, who is Dutch, and Kwe, from Cameroon, weren’t imprisoned or deported.

Little more than a week later, Montana Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy sent a letter to HHS calling for an investigation, saying the alleged improper behavior by the scientists could threaten national security.

Munster and Kwe were charged days later. U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, an Arizona Republican, in mid-July as a reason to close the Hamilton facility, part of his ongoing “Fauci-era programs.”

The arrests added to local apprehensions about the facility.

鈥“You can’t pick and choose which rules you follow when you’re dealing with this stuff,” County Commissioner Jeff Burrows said at a June meeting. “And I know he’s innocent until proven guilty, but for God’s sakes, this is a big deal.”

The Ongoing Push To Blame Fauci

About two weeks after the charges, departing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents that she said proved Fauci had lied to Congress about NIH-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab that, in her words, “sparked covid.” The documents, however, provide no new evidence that the lab launched the covid virus. Most, though not all, virus experts think the best evidence indicates the virus jumped from bats to other animals, and then to humans at a Wuhan market.

of the lab-leak theory have issued fresh calls to punish Fauci, 85, and scientists his institute funded. Fauci declined to comment for this article.

Shortly after Gabbard’s report, Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, subpoenaed Fauci to testify before the committee.

Fauci “was Dr. Frankenstein of the modern era” and “has the blood of millions of people on his hands,” Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to Trump, on June 25. “You idiot! … You need to come clean, Fauci.”

The administration’s mistrust of the federal bureaucracy and the scientific work it has funded has led to broad cuts and staffing losses, including in .

A May 2025 suspended research on many risky viruses, and HHS later halted an $82 million, that funded research into emerging viruses by 10 labs across the world. In late May this year, the White House that would give political appointees sweeping power over all federally funded science.

Prominent covid experts and scientists close to Fauci have been called before congressional committees, barred from receiving government grants, or arrested.

Marshall Bloom, an associate director at Rocky Mountain Laboratories, provides an update to the Ravalli County Board of Health in July in Hamilton, Montana. Local apprehensions about the National Institutes of Health facility intensified following the recent arrest of two of its scientists for allegedly bringing biological specimens into the U.S. without proper documents. (Katheryn Houghton/51视频 Health News)

In April, heavily armed FBI agents of David Morens, Fauci’s 78-year-old former aide. They forced him to strip to his underwear and drove him in handcuffs 40 miles to a federal courthouse, where he was briefly jailed, according to Science magazine. Morens’ case is pending.

In May, HHS told Ralph Baric, a University of North Carolina coronavirus expert, that it was halting his federal funding because of a “pattern of deception” in his communications with the NIH. .

In some ways, the arrests of Munster and Kwe felt unsurprising, said Philip Stewart, a recently retired Rocky Mountain Labs researcher focused on tick-borne diseases.

“There is an anti-science movement,” Stewart said. “We are targets, and if it hadn’t been Vincent, it would have been someone else.”

Most Americans believe in the lab-leak theory, according to surveys, and several U.S. intelligence agencies lean in that direction. That makes targeting scientists who do that kind of work politically expedient, said Daszak, whose NIH-funded nonprofit worked with Chinese virologists in Wuhan and has been under scrutiny since April 2020, when Trump his funding ended.

Animal viruses jump to humans in the wild a year, usually producing negligible infections, occasionally sparking an outbreak. The Ebola virus causing the current African epidemic may have originated in bats, which seem to carry it without getting sick.

Doctors on the ground in the Democratic Republic of Congo lacked diagnostic tests . Munster, who has extensively researched Ebola, was locked out of his lab soon after the January detention.

“While we sit around removing pandemic preparedness grants, arresting scientists, locking them up in some cases,” Daszak said, “viruses are out there evolving.”

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2260843
Trump Policies at Odds With Emerging Understanding of Covid鈥檚 Long-Term Harm /public-health/covid-long-term-effects-risks-trump-policies-vaccines-research-hhs-rfk/ Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000 Possible risk of autism in children. Dormant cancer cells awakening. Accelerating aging of the brain.

Federal officials in May 2023 declared an end to the . But more than two years later, a growing body of research continues to reveal information about the virus and its ability to cause harm long after initial infections resolve, even in some cases when symptoms were mild.

The discoveries raise fresh concerns about the Trump administration’s covid policies, researchers say. While some studies show covid vaccines offer protective benefits against longer-term health effects, the Department of Health and Human Services has drastically limited recommendations about who should get the shot. The administration also aimed at developing more protective covid vaccines.

The federal government is curtailing such efforts just as researchers call for more funding and, in some cases, long-term monitoring of people previously infected.

“People forget, but the legacy of covid is going to be long, and we are going to be learning about the chronic effects of the virus for some time to come,” said , an epidemiologist who directs the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

The Trump administration said that the covid vaccine remains available and that individuals are encouraged to talk with their health providers about what is best for them. The covid vaccine and others on the schedule of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention remain covered by insurance so that individuals don’t need to pay out-of-pocket, officials said.

“Updating CDC guidance and expanding shared clinical decision-making restores informed consent, centers parents and clinicians, and discourages 鈥榦ne size fits all’ policies,” said HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard.

Although covid has become less deadly, because of population immunization and mutations making the virus less severe, researchers say the politicization around the infection is obscuring what science is increasingly confirming: covid’s potential to cause unexpected, possibly chronic health issues. That in turn, these scientists say, drives the need for more, rather than less, research, because over the long term, covid could have significant economic and societal implications, such as higher health care costs and more demands on social programs and caregivers.

The annual average burden of the disease’s long-term health effects is estimated at $1 trillion globally and $9,000 per patient in the U.S., according to a in November in the journal NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. In this country, the annual lost earnings are estimated to be about $170 billion.

One study estimates that the flu resulted in $16 billion in direct health costs and $13 billion in productivity losses in the 2023-2024 season, according to , an online platform that publishes work not yet certified by peer review.

Covid’s Growing Reach

Much has been learned about covid since the virus emerged in 2019, unleashing a pandemic that the World Health Organization reports has killed more than . By the spring of 2020, the term “long covid” had been coined to describe chronic health problems that can persist post-infection.

More recent studies show that infection by the virus that causes covid, SARS-CoV-2, can result in heightened health risks months to more than a year later.

For example, researchers following children born to mothers who contracted the virus while pregnant have discovered they may have an , delayed speech and motor development, or other neurodevelopmental challenges.

found babies exposed to covid in utero experienced accelerated weight gain in their first year, a possible harbinger of metabolic issues that could later carry an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

These studies suggest avoiding severe covid in pregnancy may reduce risk not just during pregnancy but for future generations. That may be another good reason to get vaccinated when pregnant.

“There are other body symptoms apart from the developing fetal brain that also may be impacted,” said Andrea Edlow, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School who was involved in both studies. “We definitely need more research.”

Epidemiologists point to some specific, emerging challenges.

A in the New England Journal of Medicine found people who from mild covid infections experienced a cognitive deficit equal to a three-point drop in IQ. Among the more than 100,000 participants, deficits were greater in people who had persistent symptoms and reached the equivalent of a nine-point IQ drop for individuals admitted to intensive care.

, a clinical epidemiologist who has studied longer-term health effects from covid, did the math. He estimated covid may have increased the number of adults in the U.S. with an IQ of less than 70 from 4.7 million to 7.5 million 鈥 dealing with “a level of cognitive impairment that requires significant societal support,” he wrote.

“People get covid-19, some people do fine and bounce back, but there are people who start experiencing problems with memory, cognition, and fuzzy brain,” he said. “Even people with mild symptoms. They might not even be aware.”

Diane Yormark, 67, of Boca Raton, Florida, can relate. She got covid in 2022 and 2023. The second infection left her with brain fog and fatigue.

“I felt like if you had a little bit too much wine the night before and you’re out of it,” said Yormark, a retired copywriter, who said the worst of her symptoms lasted for about three months after the infection. “Some of the fog has lifted. But do I feel like myself? Not like I was.”

Data from more than a suggests covid vaccines can help reduce risk of severe infection as well as longer-lasting health effects, although researchers say more study is needed.

But vaccination rates remain low in the U.S., with only about 17% of the adult population reporting that they got the updated 2025-2026 shot as of Jan. 16, based on .

Trump administration officials led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have reduced access to covid vaccines despite the lack of any new, substantiated evidence of harm. Though the shots were a hallmark achievement of the first Trump administration, which led the effort for their development, Kennedy has said without evidence that they are “.”

In May he said on X that the CDC would for , citing a . The Food and Drug Administration has since issued new guidelines limiting the vaccine to people 65 or older and individuals 6 months or older with at least one risk factor, though many states continue to make them more widely available.

The Trump administration also halted for mRNA-based vaccines. Administration officials and a number of Republicans question the safety of the Nobel Prize-winning technology 鈥 heralded for the potential to treat many diseases beyond covid 鈥 even though clinical trials with tens of thousands of volunteers were performed before the covid mRNA vaccines were made available to the public.

And numerous studies, including new research in 2025, show covid vaccine benefits include a , although the protective effects wane over time.

Following the Findings

Researchers say more and broader support is important because much remains unknown about covid and its impact on the body.

The growing awareness that, even in mild covid cases, the possibility exists for longer-term, often undetected also warrants more examination, researchers say. A in eBioMedicine found people with neurocognitive issues such as changes in smell or headaches after infection had significant levels of a protein linked to Alzheimer’s in their blood plasma. EBioMedicine is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by .

In the brain, the virus leads to an immune response that triggers inflammation, can damage brain cells, and can even shrink brain volume, according to that was published in March 2022 in the journal Nature.

An of advanced brain images found significant alterations even among people who had already recovered from mild infections 鈥 a possible explanation for that may persist for years. Lead study author Kiran Thapaliya said the research suggests the virus “may leave a silent, lasting effect on brain health.”

Al-Alay agreed.

“We don’t know what will happen to people 10 years down the road,” he said. “Inflammation of the brain is not a good thing. It’s absolutely not a good thing.”

That inflammatory response has also been linked to blood clots, arrhythmias, and higher risk of cardiovascular issues, even following a mild infection.

A University of Southern California study published in October 2024 in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology found the risk for a remains elevated nearly three years after covid infection. The findings held even for people who were not hospitalized.

“We were surprised to see the effects that far out” regardless of individual heart disease history, said James R. Hilser, the study’s lead author and a postdoctoral fellow at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.

Covid can also and trigger a relapse, according to research published in July in the journal Nature. Researchers found that the chance of dying from cancer among cancer survivors was higher among people who’d had covid, especially in the year after being infected. There was nearly a twofold increase in cancer mortality in those who tested positive compared with those who tested negative.

The potential of the covid virus to affect future generations is yielding new findings as well. Australian researchers looked at male mice and found that those who had been from covid experienced changes to their sperm that altered their offspring’s behavior, causing them to exhibit more anxiety.

Meanwhile, many people are now living 鈥 and struggling 鈥 with the virus’ after-effects.

Dee Farrand, 57, of Marana, Arizona, could once run five miles and was excelling at her job in sales. She recovered from a covid infection in May 2021.

Two months later, her heart began to beat irregularly. Farrand underwent a battery of tests at a hospital. Ultimately, the condition became so severe she had to go on supplemental oxygen for two years.

Her cognitive abilities declined so severely she couldn’t read, because she’d forget the first sentence after reading the second. She also had to leave herself reminders that she is allergic to shrimp or that she likes avocados. She said she lost her job and returned to her previous occupation as a social worker.

“I was the person who is like the Energizer bunny and all of a sudden I’d get so tired getting dressed that I had to go back to bed,” Farrand said.

While she is better, covid has left a mark. She said she’s not yet able to run the five miles she used to do without any problems.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2145436
Inside the FDA鈥檚 Vaccine Uproar /public-health/vaccine-uproar-fda-former-commissioners-vinay-prasad-memo-worldview/ Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000 Six days after a senior FDA official sent a claiming that covid vaccines had caused the deaths of “at least 10 children,” 12 former FDA commissioners released an in the Dec. 3 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

They wrote that the claims and policy changes in the memo from Vinay Prasad, the head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pose “a threat to evidence-based vaccine policy and public health security” and break sharply from long-standing scientific norms.

What is unfolding inside the FDA is not a narrow dispute over covid vaccines. It is an attempt, according to critics and vaccine scientists, to rewrite the rules governing the entire U.S. vaccine system 鈥 how risks are weighed, how benefits are proved, and how quickly lifesaving shots reach the public. Former agency leaders warn that if these changes take hold, the consequences could be lasting: fewer vaccines, slower updates, weakened public trust, and more preventable outbreaks.

Prasad made clear he sees the moment as corrective. “Never again will the US FDA commissioner have to himself find deaths in children for staff to identify it,” he wrote, telling employees the agency’s mission, and its “worldview,” would change.

Prasad’s email reopened old arguments about covid vaccines, using what is generally considered weak and misleading science in the peer-reviewed research community. He claimed that FDA staff had found “at least 10” deaths in children that happened “after and because of” covid vaccination, using reports from the .

The VAERS system is notoriously crowdsourced, meaning anyone can contribute, and scientists say it serves only as a clearinghouse for reports. For example, a person could file a report saying that after getting a flu shot, their hair turned purple. Though that report would remain in the database until it was reviewed, it cannot prove the cause of medical events. But Prasad argued that the true number of deaths was likely higher because many cases go unreported.

On Substack, that Prasad used incomplete information and that a Dec. 5 internal FDA memo set the pediatric death toll from covid shots somewhere between zero and seven. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote, “The FDA’s investigation into deaths caused by Covid vaccines is still ongoing and there’s no final count yet of those deaths.”

Prasad also accused the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of downplaying the risk of heart inflammation, called myocarditis, in young men; criticized the agency for approving shots for teenagers; and suggested that school and workplace vaccine mandates may have “harmed more children than we saved,” adding that “we do not know if we saved lives on balance.”

By comparison, died of covid itself since the pandemic began, the CDC reported.

Based on his erroneous and misleading claims about covid vaccines, Prasad proposed a major overhaul of how vaccines are approved. He said the FDA should stop relying on immune markers to establish the efficacy of shots, such as antibody levels, and instead require large placebo-controlled randomized trials that track hospitalizations and deaths before approving most new vaccines.

Many immunologists and vaccine experts say it’s unethical to test vaccines known to be effective against disease with a control group that would receive a placebo, exposing them to infection.

“There is a rock-solid principle in bioethics that it is unethical to test any drug or vaccine against a placebo if it is known to be safe and effective. The reason is that such placebo-controlled trials would effectively deny patients access to a vaccine that could prevent a dangerous infectious disease,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University.

Prasad called the current flu vaccine system an “evidence-based catastrophe,” questioned the approval of vaccines for pregnant women based on immune response alone, and raised concerns about giving multiple vaccines at once. He told staff to rewrite FDA guidelines to match his new “worldview” and said anyone who disagreed with his “core principles” should resign.

Vinay Prasad smiles for his official portrait. The U.S. flag is behind him.
Vinay Prasad heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (U.S. FDA via AP)

The former FDA leaders expressed alarm in the NEJM article. They said Prasad is exploiting public frustration over the federal response to covid to spark doubt about the entire childhood vaccine system, which could undo decades of success in protecting children from deadly diseases.

“This is really different. And it’s really dangerous. And people will be hurt, particularly by the vaccine decisions,” former FDA commissioner Robert Califf said in an interview. He also warned that Prasad’s proposed policies 鈥 which he noted echo positions on vaccines held by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist 鈥 could shake the entire vaccine market.

“The goal of RFK seems to be to make it impossible for vaccines to be available in the U.S.,” he said. If the proposals advance, he added, “it won’t be a viable business.”

Hilliard pushed back sharply on those concerns, writing: “The American people deserve evidence-based science. Prasad’s email lays out a philosophical framework that points us toward that higher standard. We will soon release documents laying out that framework and data confirming how the COVID vaccine resulted in children’s deaths that previous leadership failed to properly investigate.”

For generations, the childhood vaccine program has depended on clear rules, strong safety systems, and public trust. Experts say Prasad’s ideas, based on claims they argue are not supported by real evidence, could make it much harder to test, approve, and deliver vaccines to families.

Fueling Parental Doubt

Prasad’s memo indicates he considers VAERS reports as proof that vaccines caused children’s deaths. The system, though, is designed to be only an “” for potential safety issues with vaccines that can be investigated further.

“VAERS signals should never be taken as proof of true vaccine risks without careful, confirmatory studies,” said Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist and longtime investigator with the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC program.

Doing so, scientists say, directly feeds public fear at a time when many parents are already unsure whom to trust.

“Causation requires converging evidence, not just one report or coincidence,” said Robert Hopkins, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Prasad’s framework, however, treats uncertainty as a reason to halt development entirely.

Experts fear this doubt won’t stay limited to covid vaccines. Once parents start to question the FDA’s honesty, they may begin doubting long-standing vaccines for measles, polio, or whooping cough 鈥 shots that have protected children for decades.

“Science must be transparent,” Gostin said. If families believe the FDA is misusing data or silencing experts, confidence in the entire vaccine system can collapse, he said. “There’s a public narrative that people have lost trust in science, but that’s not true. The vast majority want the FDA to make decisions based on the best scientific evidence. Once they believe that the agency is marginalizing scientists and cherry-picking evidence, their trust will plummet.”

Delicate Vaccine Pipeline

Prasad’s new framework will likely make it far harder for companies to produce or update vaccines. The 12 former FDA commissioners warned that requiring clinical trials for all new or updated shots would slow vaccine improvements and leave people unprotected. His plan, they wrote, “would impede the ability to update vaccines in a timely fashion, especially for respiratory viruses.”

For fast-changing viruses like flu and covid, this could be disastrous. There’s simply not enough time to run full clinical trials every time a virus mutates.

There are also major business effects. Vaccine development is costly, and companies may decide the U.S. is no longer worth the risk. If companies slow down or leave the market, families could face shortages, fewer innovations, and fewer protections for their kids.

‘Checks and Balances’

Science depends on open and public debate. Prasad’s memo warned his employees against it. In addition to demanding that FDA staff members who disagree with him resign, he said their disputes should stay private and called leaks “unethical” and “illegal.”

Susan Ellenberg, a former director of the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, warned that Prasad risks destroying the process that makes science credible. “If disagreement is treated as disloyalty, you lose the only mechanism that keeps science honest,” she said.

Without strong internal debate, safety reviews become weaker. “You lose the checks and balances that make vaccine safety science credible,” said Kathryn Edwards, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who served on the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network during the covid pandemic.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2131639
Conflicting Advice on Covid Shots Likely To Ding Already Low Vaccine Rates, Experts Warn /health-industry/covid-flu-vaccination-rates-virus-season-conflicting-guidance-immigration/ Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000

More than three-quarters of American adults didn’t get a covid shot last season, a figure that health care experts warn could rise this year amid new U.S. government recommendations.

The covid vaccine was initially popular. About 75% of Americans had received of the first versions of the vaccine by early 2022, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows. But only about 23% of American adults got a covid shot during the 2024-25 virus season, well below the 47% of American adults who got a flu shot. The vaccination rates for , , and tetanus are also going down.

Yet covid remains a serious, potentially deadly health risk, listed as the primary cause of death on roughly 31,400 death certificates last year. By comparison, flu killed people and pneumonia, a common complication of the flu, killed , .

As millions of Americans decide whether to get a covid shot this season, public health researchers worry vaccination rates will slide further, especially because Hispanic and Black Americans and those under 30 have lower rates, exposing them to serious complications such as long covid. Under the Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the federal government has narrowed its recommendations on the covid vaccine, leading to a hodgepodge of rules on pharmacy access, with Americans living in Republican states often facing more barriers to getting a shot.

“A lot of misinformation is going around regarding covid,” said , an assistant professor of health, society, and behavior at the University of California-Irvine. “Vaccine hesitancy is going to increase.”

In August, the FDA for covid vaccines to those 65 or older and to adults and children with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for serious complications from covid.

A month later, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “shared clinical decision-making” on the vaccine, pulling back from advising all adults to get vaccinated. The committee advised doctors to emphasize to adults under 65 and children that the benefits of the vaccine are greatest for those with underlying health conditions.

The guidance is rebutted by infectious disease experts who say most adults and children should get both the flu and covid vaccines, which are safe, effective, and prevent serious illness. Several independent medical organizations like the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics have reiterated their support for broad adoption of covid vaccines.

More than two dozen states have taken steps to ensure most people can get a covid shot at the pharmacy without a prescription, with many states tying their policies to the advice given by medical organizations. And many of those states require insurers to cover vaccines at no cost, according to . In several other states, predominantly Republican-led, pharmacy access to vaccines may require a prescription.

Hispanic, Black Americans Vaccinated at Lower Rates (Grouped Bars)

Among the most commonly cited reasons for covid vaccine hesitation are fears about side effects, long-term health consequences, and the effectiveness of the vaccine, and mistrust of pharmaceutical corporations and government officials, according to of multiple studies, published in the journal Vaccines.

Covid vaccine hesitancy in the 2024-25 virus season was higher among Latinos, African Americans, men, uninsured people, and people living in Republican-leaning states, CDC data shows.

Latino adults were significantly less likely than adults from most other racial and ethnic groups to get a covid shot last season, with a vaccination rate around 15%.

Some of that may be due to age: A of Latinos are young. But public policy actions may also be a factor. The first Trump administration, for example, tied Medicaid to “public charge,” a rule allowing the federal government to deny an immigrant a green card or visa based on their dependence on taxpayer-funded programs. Some Latinos may be afraid to sign up for social services even after the Biden administration reversed those first-term Trump actions.

Haro-Ramos co-authored published in 2024 that found many Latinos were hesitant to get vaccinated because of fears about their immigration status, and that experiencing health discrimination, like care denials or delays, increased their vaccine hesitancy.

“Do you trust the health care system, broadly speaking? Do you want to provide your information — your name, your address?” Haro-Ramos said. “Trust is critical.”

Haro-Ramos said the problem has likely worsened since her study was published. The Trump administration that it would give the personal information of Medicaid enrollees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many Latinos are canceling doctor appointments to head off possible confrontation with immigration enforcement officials.

“People are avoiding leaving their homes at all costs,” Haro-Ramos said.

, an associate professor at the University of Georgia College of Public Health, recently of covid vaccination among nearly 1,500 African Americans living in south Georgia. The study found that participants were more likely to listen to their health care providers than faith leaders or co-workers when seeking advice on getting vaccinated.

More than 90% of those studied had received at least one dose of the vaccine, but those who were unvaccinated were more likely to agree with false statements that tied vaccines to miscarriages, to components’ remaining in the body for a long time, or even to the conspiracy that they implant a computer chip in the body.

“It’s the clinicians who can take the messages about vaccination — that these are myths,” Rajbhandari-Thapa said.

Older Americans Vaccinated at Higher Rates (Grouped column chart)

Even though covid hospitalization and death rates have fallen dramatically since the worst days of the pandemic, fatal complications related to covid remain most common among older people. of U.S. covid deaths last year were among people 65 and older, compared with of flu and pneumonia deaths.

As the pandemic falls into the rearview, young people have developed a sense of invincibility. Only 11% of Americans ages 18 to 29 received a vaccine during the 2024-25 virus season, the lowest vaccination rate among adult age groups. That’s far below the who got at least one dose of the initial covid vaccines by November 2023.

While many people get covid after receiving a covid shot, because the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection wears off pretty fast, some misunderstand the purpose of the shot, said , an infectious disease specialist at UCLA Health.

“They think, ‘Well, the vaccine didn’t prevent me from getting covid, so the vaccine didn’t work,’” Yang said. “And what they’re not seeing is that the vaccine prevented them from getting severely ill, which is ultimately the most important thing.”

And the vaccine can help prevent long covid, which is a problem for all ages, Yang said. A recent Northwestern University study younger adults suffer worse symptoms of long covid than older adults.

Ultimately, Yang said, it is not a consistent choice to get a flu vaccine but forgo a covid vaccine, since both are safe, effective, and prevent serious illness. It is clear, he added, that people with compromised immune systems and those at higher risk should get a covid shot. The decision is “a little bit less clear” for others, but “probably most adults should be getting vaccinated, just like it’s recommended for the flu vaccine, as well as most children.”

Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2110742
Despite the Hoopla, Vaccines Should Be in Reach This Cough-and-Cold Season /public-health/fall-vaccine-guide-explainer-schedule-covid-flu-rsv/ Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:00:00 +0000 For people whose autumn agenda includes getting vaccinated against respiratory diseases 鈥 covid, flu, and, for some, RSV 鈥 this year may be surprisingly routine.

Following several confusing months this summer when federal officials announced and then retreated from changes to covid vaccine recommendations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Oct. 6 that are not that different from last year’s. That should clear the way for most people who want shots this fall to get them, public health experts say.

“From a patient’s experience, there shouldn’t be anything different from what they’ve experienced in the past, except maybe they’ll get a little more information from the pharmacist,” said , senior director of strategic initiatives at the National Community Pharmacists Association.

Here’s what you need to know:

Covid Vaccine

This fall, the covid vaccine is recommended , with one caveat. People need to have a conversation with their provider first, a model called “shared clinical decision-making.” Providers can be doctors, pharmacists, or the health professionals giving the shots. For people younger than 65, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices emphasized that vaccination is generally more beneficial for those who are at higher risk for severe covid.

Although the shots are recommended for the same age range as last year, there are a few possible wrinkles. Even though the CDC’s approval is broad and means that health plans have to cover the shot without charging consumers for it, some providers may balk at giving the vaccine to people under 65 unless they have an underlying condition that puts them at risk for severe covid if they get infected. That’s what the for the covid vaccine advises.

“It’s a nuance that could occur in an interaction between a provider and a patient,” said , a senior vice president and the director of global and public health policy at 51视频, a health information nonprofit that includes 51视频 Health News.

However, if a provider refused to administer the shot to a healthy person because doing so would be “off-label,” another provider would probably be willing to give someone the jab, experts said.

“They could go to a different pharmacy,” Kates said.

Many states have stepped in to ensure that people can get vaccines if they want them, according to . Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted recommendations that are broader than those of the federal government, Kates said.

However, the percentage of people opting to get the covid vaccine continues to drop. At the end of April, 23% of adults said they had received the current vaccine, .

With uptake so low, fewer pharmacies and doctors may choose to stock the shot this year, said , a primary care doctor who is the population health leader for the management consultancy WTW and an assistant professor at Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health.

Large chains, including CVS and Walgreens, say they have enough supply available to meet demand.

The additional hoops people might have to go through 鈥 such as having to find a different pharmacy or physician 鈥 could have an impact on uptake of the covid shot, though.

“To get more people to get vaccines, the key is making vaccination really easy and to take steps out,” Levin-Scherz said.

Influenza Vaccine

More people seek out the flu vaccine than the covid vaccine, but even so, only 47% of adults got a shot last flu season.

The that virtually everyone 6 months or older get a flu shot annually. This year is no different. The shots should be widely available at pharmacies and physician offices, and health plans will cover the shots without charging people for them.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services that flu vaccines must not contain thimerosal, a preservative that prevents bacterial growth in vaccines. There is that the mercury-based additive, which has been used for decades, is harmful, according to vaccine researchers. Last year, that only 6% of flu vaccines use thimerosal as a preservative.

RSV Vaccine

This vaccine protects against respiratory syncytial virus, a highly contagious that infects the lungs and respiratory tract. Although symptoms are typically mild, RSV can lead to serious lung infections, particularly in older people.

A vaccine . The for everyone 75 or older and for people 50 to 74 who have medical conditions that put them at risk for severe disease.

People who meet the criteria should be able to get the RSV vaccine at their local pharmacy, Fish said.

The RSV vaccine is not an annual vaccine. If you’ve already received it, you don’t need to get it again, according to current guidelines.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2103220
RFK Jr. Said 鈥楨verybody Can Get鈥 a Covid Vaccine. Is That True? /public-health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-access-fact-check/ Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000
“Everybody can get” the covid-19 vaccine.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing Politifact Rating

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the covid-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the its covid , limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe covid infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years 鈥 that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost 鈥 is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the .

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans vaccines recommended by the CDC. also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a .

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a covid shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel .

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, .

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a covid vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

鈥極ff-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a covid vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a covid vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children 鈥 and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor 鈥 shared clinical decision-making 鈥 and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

Covid vaccines cost about $142, according to the . It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a covid vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a covid vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the covid vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth 鈥 the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

Our Sources

Email statement from the Department of Health and Human Services, Sept. 4, 2025.

PolitiFact, “” Aug. 29, 2025.

, Aug. 27, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “,” Aug. 8, 2025.

NBC News, “,” Aug. 21, 2025.

PBS NewsHour, “,” Sept. 3, 2025.

USA Today, “,” Sept. 3, 2025.

PolitiFact, “,” June 18, 2025.

The Washington Post, “” Aug. 28, 2025.

Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, “,” Aug. 28, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “,” June 18, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “,” Jan. 7, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, , Sept. 1, 2025.

PBS News, “,” Sept. 3, 2025.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2085000
On Capitol Hill, RFK Defends Firings at CDC /podcast/what-the-health-412-rfk-kennedy-hhs-cdc-senate-hearing-vaccines-september-5-2025/ Fri, 05 Sep 2025 18:20:00 +0000 /?p=2083602&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2083602 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 51视频 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 51视频 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Just days after his firing of the brand-new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a defiant Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services, defended that action and others before a sometimes skeptical Senate Finance Committee. Criticism of Kennedy’s increasingly anti-vaccine actions came not just from Democrats on the panel but from some Republicans who are also medical doctors.

Meanwhile, members of Congress have only a few weeks left to complete work on spending bills or risk a government shutdown, and time is also running out to head off the large increases in premiums for Affordable Care Act health plans likely to occur with additional Biden-era government subsidies set to expire.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 51视频 Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann photo
Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call
Sarah Karlin-Smith photo
Sarah Karlin-Smith Pink Sheet
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The FDA approved this year’s covid booster for people older than 65 and for younger people with serious illnesses. Previously, it had been recommended more broadly. All eyes will now turn to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is scheduled to meet Sept. 18. Usually this panel would endorse these recommendations and perhaps offer more guidance on the booster’s use for specific populations. But it is not clear whether it will do so 鈥 or whether it might even impose more limitations.
  • Kennedy’s firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignation of multiple senior scientists is raising questions about the agency’s future. Many staffers who were already on the fence about staying now are increasingly likely to leave. Many of these career scientists associate Kennedy’s history of harsh criticisms of public health workers with the recent CDC shooting in Atlanta. But since the shooting, Kennedy seems to have doubled down on his position.
  • At the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, even those Republicans who were critical of Kennedy were careful not to criticize President Donald Trump. There’s some speculation that this duality is meant to drive a wedge between Kennedy and the White House, and to communicate that the HHS secretary could be politically damaging.
  • With vaccine policy in flux, red and blue states alike seem to be doing their own thing. Some, like California, Oregon, and Washington 鈥 which formed what they’re calling the West Coast Health Alliance 鈥 appear to be taking steps to protect access to vaccines. Red states could move in the other direction. For instance, this week, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced an effort to undo all statewide vaccine mandates, including those that require certain vaccines for children to attend school. If more states follow suit, it could lead to a geographic patchwork in which vaccine availability and requirements vary widely.
  • This month is lawmakers’ last chance to reup the federal ACA tax subsidies. If Congress doesn’t act to extend them, an estimated 24 million people 鈥 many of whom live in GOP-controlled states like Georgia and Florida 鈥 will see significant increases in their health insurance premium costs. There’s some talk that Congress could opt for a short-term or limited extension that would postpone the pocketbook impact until after the midterm elections. But insurers are already factoring in the uncertainty as they set rates for the upcoming plan year.
  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a Medicare pilot program beginning next year that will use artificial intelligence to grant prior authorization decisions for certain procedures. There is irony here. United Healthcare and other private plans have already gotten into a lot of trouble for doing this, with AI systems often denying needed care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 51视频 Health News’s Tony Leys, who discusses his “Bill of the Month” report about a woman’s unfortunate interaction with a bat 鈥 and her even more unfortunate interaction with the bill for her rabies prevention treatment.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, and Pratheek Rebala.

Jessie Hellmann: 51视频 Health News’ “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle,” by Bram Sable-Smith.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: NPR’s “,” by Blake Farmer.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Vox’s “,” by Dylan Scott.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Washington Post’s “,” by David Ovalle and Lori Rozsa.
  • The 19th’s “,” by Shefali Luthra.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Reed Abelson and Teddy Rosenbluth.
click to open the transcript Transcript: On Capitol Hill, RFK Defends Firings at CDC

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 51视频 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, Sept. 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my 51视频 Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the August “Bill of the Month” about a patient’s unfortunate run-in with a bat and an even more unfortunate run-in with the bill for rabies prophylaxis. But first, this week’s news.  

Well, it is safe to say that there has been quite a bit of health news since we last met in mid-August. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, which we will talk about in a moment. But first, I want to catch us up on what you might’ve missed. Our story starts, kind of, with the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of this year’s covid boosters, which are only being licensed for those over age 65 and those who are younger but have at least one condition that puts them at high risk of serious illness if they contract the virus. That leaves out lots of people that many doctors think ought to be boosted, like pregnant women and children. Sarah, what’s supposed to happen after the FDA acts? The next step happens at CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. So right now the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet Sept. 17 to 18, 18 to 19, but about two weeks from now. And they would typically vote on sort of endorsing use of these vaccines and, again, have like sort of a second chance to weigh in on which populations they would be used for. And that’s often important for triggering insurance coverage without copays. And also many states rely on the CDC recommendations for various state laws that say, again, who can get the vaccine or whether you can get it via a pharmacist or only at a doctor’s office, do you need a prescription, and things like that. So the CDC and FDA, I would say, in general is a little bit behind this year. I could think a lot of people have been trying to go out and get these new shots even though those steps haven’t happened yet. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, it is early. Even if there was nothing else going on, there is that little bit of a lag between when FDA acts and when the CDC acts, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, there usually is. I think in the past they’ve tried to have both FDA approval and the CDC act so that the vaccines could start rolling out more like late summer, early September. So they’re definitely behind, and there’s been a number of reports of covid kind of slowly rising as the summer winds down and school gets back in session. 

Rovner: Yeah, so there’s a lot of other things going on. Well, in the meantime, nothing that was supposed to happen has happened yet, and we still don’t know all the details, but it certainly appears that Susan Monarez, who was just confirmed by the Senate to lead the CDC a month ago, was fired after she refused to override her scientific advisers and approve the new restrictions on covid vaccine availability, even before the ACIP met. In turn, four top CDC leaders resigned as well, going public to warn that the agency is being politicized by the secretary. How much of a mess is the CDC in right now? And how long is it going to take to put the pieces back together? 

Karlin-Smith: I think they’re in a pretty bad place, because not only did they lose their director really quickly, but after she resigned, about I think it was eight or nine senior CDC leaders resigned last week as well. And so, really critical people to various parts of the operation that you don’t just replace very easily. And Kennedy has slotted in Jim O’Neill as the temporary director of the CDC and kind of indicated he wants to remake the agency. And I think there are questions as to how that remaking shapes both its priorities and how it handles public health throughout the U.S. 

Rovner: And of course, morale at CDC is awesome, in part because, as we discussed the last time we met, a gunman came and shot up the place, killing a policeman and leaving the staff pretty upset. And that gunman, who then took his own life, was later found to have had some discontent with vaccines. So things are just really bright and cheery there in Atlanta at the CDC. Alice, I see you nodding. 

Ollstein: These things kind of snowball, you know? I think there are likely to be a lot of staff who were already on the fence about staying and decided to stay because they trusted these pretty senior leaders with a lot of decades of expertise and institutional knowledge. And that was sort of the thread they were hanging on as well, at least: I’m with these people. And now that they’ve left, I think that could trigger a bigger exodus on top of the exodus that was already underway. 

Rovner: And it’s important to say 鈥 even though we say it, I think, every time 鈥 that these are career scientists who’ve worked for Democrats and Republicans over the years. These are not generally political people. They’re not political appointees. And they basically do their jobs. And until fairly recently, public health wasn’t this partisan, so it wasn’t that hard to be a career public health official just working for public health. That’s just not the case anymore, is it? 

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s been a lot of insult to injury added with what happened with the shooting at the CDC, because there is a sense that the kind of rhetoric that Kennedy in particular has used over the years, even before he came into HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], on sort of his movement has sort of amplified the criticism of public health workers and put them in this situation where they’re dangerous. And Kennedy, instead of really acknowledging that and maybe apologizing or giving any sense that he was going to shift in a different direction, has actually really kind of doubled down on it. And even in some of the pieces he’s written recently about how he wants to reform the CDC, he kind of keeps criticizing the rank-and-file employees and so forth. So there’s a lot of tension between the political leadership and the career staff, I think, at this moment. 

Ollstein: And in normal times, most of the American public would not even know the names of these people. They’re not public figures. They’re just very behind-the-scenes scientists doing their work. And now their personal photos are being combed through and shared to attack them because they’ve criticized the administration. They’re getting threats. It’s just this whole level, like you said, of politicization that we haven’t seen before. 

Rovner: Well, so, in kind of a coincidence, Kennedy had already agreed to appear on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, which by the way doesn’t have jurisdiction over the CDC or the rest of the public health service. But no matter 鈥 a Senate hearing is a Senate hearing. And let’s just say it didn’t go that well for the secretary. Democrats were kind of withering in their criticism of Kennedy’s eight-month tenure so far. Here’s Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. 

Sen. Michael Bennet: This is the last thing, by the way, our parents need when their kids are going back to school, is to have the kind of confusion and expense and scarcity that you’re creating as a result of your ideology. 

Rovner: Republicans weren’t that impressed, either, particularly the Republicans on the committee who are also doctors. [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, a doctor who’s on Finance but is also the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a primary challenge in Louisiana, seemed to tread pretty carefully. More surprising, at least to me, was Dr. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who’s also in the Senate leadership. 

Sen. John Barrasso: So over the last 50 years, vaccines are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide. I support vaccines. I’m a doctor. Vaccines work. 

Rovner: I was super impressed that even the Republicans who criticized RFK were careful not to criticize President [Donald] Trump. In fact, there were several suggestions 鈥 this was clearly a talking point 鈥 that Trump should be given a Nobel Prize for his work overseeing Operation Warp Speed, just so the senators could kind of bifurcate their complaints. What impact, if any, is this hearing going to have on RFK’s future as secretary? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there was an attempt to, I think, what you just mentioned. That like dual criticism with praise of Trump was meant to drive a wedge and to get Trump to question RFK’s leadership. That does not seem to have worked so far. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it’s an attempt to get the message to Trump that RFK’s reputation and actions could be damaging to the administration overall. And there was some reporting that polling showing that most people do support vaccines was circulated amongst Republican members before the hearing. And so, I think it’s trying to, yeah, get the message that this is both damaging in a public health sense but also potentially damaging in a political sense as well. 

But so far, the reporting is that Trump is standing by RFK, that he liked how combative he was. And so I don’t know where those attempts to drive a wedge will go in the future, but like you said, it was notable that if folks like Barrasso, [Sen. Thom] Tillis, who’s not running for reelection, was also more vocally critical, and a couple others, not a lot. We’re not seeing a great dam breaking yet. But I think there’s more cracks than there used to be on the GOP side. 

Rovner: I did notice that Trump, he had a very strange Truth Social post earlier in the week that basically said that CDC is a mess and it has to be fixed. Kind of just Trump being the omniscient observer. And then, apparently at a dinner with tech titans after the hearing, he said that he had not watched the hearing but that he heard that Kennedy did well, which is not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. I feel like Trump is giving himself some runway to go either way depending on sort of how things continue to shake out. I see nodding. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I saw a lot of people reposting that clip on social media last night who are frustrated with Kennedy and using it to try and ramp up their banks and say: Keep calling. Keep pressuring. This shows we have an opening. I think it’s really always hard to read the tea leaves with Trump and his language and words. He’s a harder person to interpret. But I also thought it was really interesting that in some ways Cassidy and some of the other Republicans were throwing RFK a bone and saying: This is your president. This was his greatest achievement. Can you support it? 

And RFK couldn’t even really twist himself into doing that. He sort of tried to, but he could never square it with the bulk of his remarks at the hearing, which were incredibly critical. MRNA vaccines and vaccines in general 鈥 he defended the massive cuts in this area for research. He defended people who have really said very untrue things about the harm caused by these vaccines. So in some ways I felt like Cassidy was trying to give him one more chance or something, and RFK couldn’t even take it when it was couched as this Trump achievement. 

Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if this is playing to Trump’s advantage because it’s distracting from Trump’s other problems, that perhaps Trump likes that there’s so much attention on this because it takes attention away from other things. 

Ollstein: Yeah. Although I do find the eagerness of Democratic members of Congress and other folks to wave away certain things as a distraction as a little bit questionable. This is all part of the agenda of the administration, and dismantling government bureaucracy is clearly a core, core part of the administration’s agenda, and so鈥 

Rovner: And flooding the zone. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Well, it might also serve as a distraction. I think that it should be considered a serious part of what they actually want to do as well. 

Rovner: So there were a couple of things that we learned about RFK Jr. from his confirmation hearings back in the winter. One is that he’s not at all deferential to elected officials, even calling them liars, which is pretty unheard of. And that he doesn’t really know how his department works. And it appears that eight months later, neither of those things have changed. How does he get away with being so rude? I mean, I’ve just never seen a Cabinet official who’s been so undeferential to the people who basically put him in office. Is it just me? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s part of the times where politics is really trumping behavior or policy, right? Even though there were a few Republicans that we’ve talked about who have kind of started to get frustrated with RFK and his vaccine policies. You saw at the beginning of the hearing, Chairman [Mike] Crapo was asked by the ranking Democrat, Sen. [Ron] Wyden, to basically swear Kennedy in because Wyden has felt like Kennedy has lied to the committee before. And Crapo just basically brushed that away and dismissed it. And I think, so, in many ways a lot of the Republicans on the committee endorsed Kennedy’s behavior kind of, maybe not overtly but indirectly, and that’s sort of been how they’ve been operating. It’s more of a political theater thing, and they’re OK with sort of this disrespect, of its sort of political fight that somebody on their side is taking up. 

Ollstein: I also think Congress’ unwillingness so far to actually sanction or take action in any way about anything RFK has done seems to have emboldened him. I think the fact that he has broken all these promises he made to Cassidy and other senators and there have been basically no consequences for him so far feeds into that. He kind of has a What are you going to do? attitude that was very evident in the hearing. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s fair. Well, there were, as always, parochial question from senators about home state issues, but one topic I don’t think I expected to see come up as many times as it did was the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which is about to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original approval by the FDA. Alice, what are you hearing about whether FDA is going to rein the drug back in, which is what a lot of these anti-abortion Republicans really want to see happen? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think there was nothing new in the hearing this week. What he said was what he’s been saying, that they’re looking into it, that they’re evaluating. He made no specific commitments. He gave no specific timelines. He said basically enough to keep the anti-abortion people thinking that they’re cooking up some restrictions but not explicitly promising that, either. And so I think we’re just where we were before. They continue to reference data put forward by an anti-abortion think tank that was not peer-reviewed and claiming that it is this solid scientific evidence, which it is not, about the risks posed by the pills, which many actual, credible, peer-reviewed studies have found to be very safe. And so we just don’t know what’s going to happen. I think any nationwide restrictions, which is what they’re mulling at the federal level, which would impact states where abortion is legally protected, that would be a potentially politically damaging move. And so it’s understandable why they might not want to pull that trigger right now. So, right. 

Rovner: And Trump has said, I mean, Trump has indicated that he does not really want to wade into this. 

Ollstein: Correct. But again, he’s also very good about not making hard promises in either direction and sort of keeping his options open, which is what they’re doing. The anti-abortion activists, this is not their only iron in the fire. This is just one of many strategies they have going on. They also have multiple pending lawsuits and court cases that are attempting to accomplish the same thing. They’re pursuing new policies at the state level, which we’ll probably talk about, Texas and others. 

Rovner: Next. 

Ollstein: And so yes, this pressure on FDA and HHS to use regulation to restrict the pills is only one of many ongoing efforts. 

Rovner: Well, you have anticipated my next question, which is that while we are on the subject of the abortion pill, Texas, because it is always Texas, has a new bill on its way to the governor for a signature to try to outlaw . What exactly would this Texas law do? And would it work? Because, obviously, this has been the biggest loophole about stopping abortion in these states that have banned abortion, is that people are still able to get these pills from other states via telemedicine. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So in one sense, nothing’s changed. Abortion was already illegal in Texas, whether you use a pill or have a procedure. And so this is just layered on top of that. The groups who backed this explicitly said the attempt is to have a chilling effect. What they’re hoping is that no lawsuits are even needed, because this just scares people away from ordering pills and scares groups in other states away from sending pills. One concern that I saw raised is that the law criminalizes simply the shipping of the pills. Somebody doesn’t even have to take them for a crime to have been committed. 

And so that’s raising concerns that anti-abortion activists will do kind of sting operations, sort of entrapment-y things where they order the pills solely in the interest of bringing a lawsuit. Because there is a cash bounty that you can get for filing a lawsuit 鈥 there’s an incentive. So that’s a concern. And then just the general concern of a chilling effect and people who are using less safe means than these pills to terminate their pregnancies out of fear, which studies have shown is already on the rise, people injuring themselves taking herbs and other substances, chemicals. So that’s a concern as well. 

Rovner: We’ll continue to watch this, but back to vaccine policy. With the status of federal vaccine recommendations in limbo, states appear to be going their own way. Blue states California, Washington, and Oregon are banding together in a consortium to make official recommendations in the absence of federal policy, and several blue-state governors are acting unilaterally to make sure covid vaccines, at least, remain available to most people. At the same time, some red states are going the other way, with Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who we have talked about before, now vowing to for schoolchildren. Sarah, that would be a really big deal, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think the big fear then is that the school requirements is kind of what gets us to close to, in many cases, universal vaccine uptake in the country, because everybody needs their kids to be in school. Unless you’re homeschooled, you really must follow these vaccine requirements. And it not only hurts the kids who don’t end up getting vaccinated individually, but it can really hurt the idea of herd immunity and the protection we need for these diseases to disappear in the community. So there’s鈥 

Rovner: And protection for people who can’t be immunized for some reason. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. Who either can’t be immunized or don’t have an adequate response to the immunization because they’re going through cancer treatment or they have some other medical reason that their body is immunocompromised. 

Rovner: So, I mean, is this going to end up like abortion, where it’s availability absolutely depends on where you live? 

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s hard to say. I think that a policy like what Florida is trying to implement could very quickly and easily go wrong, I think, and be reversed, as we’ve seen, like what’s happening in Texas now, with measles outbreaks. You know you only need just very small fractions of decreases in vaccination to create huge public health crises in places. And so I think it would be more sort of visible, in a way, to some of these states and their populations, the potential harm that could be caused, than maybe it is to them the abortion harm. But we definitely are seeing some sense of, right, the Democratic-controlled states trying to implement policies that help people get better access to vaccines, even when the federal government is trying to maybe harm that, and red states not caring as much. 

So there is going to be some more of a patchwork. And I feel like, in talking to just sort of people outside of the health policy space, there is a lot of confusion about: Where can I get my covid vaccine? Am I going to have to pay? Do I qualify? Especially being in D.C., which has less generous, I guess, pharmacy laws, because of this. So people are confused. If I go to Maryland, which is really close, does that matter even though I live in D.C.? And it’s just all these things we kind of know end up leading to less people getting vaccinated. Because even if they want to do it, the hurdles end up driving people away. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think something you’d said earlier about the fact that we’re seeing kind of a covid spike, so people are anxious to get covid vaccines, I think, a little bit earlier than normal. It’s usually kind of a fall thing and it’s only the beginning of September, but I think there’s just this combination, this confluence of events that has a lot of people very excited about this right now. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think it does. And covid has been, I think there’s been lots of hope in the public health world that covid would become a little bit like the flu, where we could predict a little bit more when it would really peak and get everybody vaccinated around the same time as they’re getting flu vaccines. Just again, because we know when we make it easier on people to get vaccinated, if you could just one-and-done it, it would be good. Unfortunately, covid has tended to also still have summer peaks, and this year again it’s kind of a late summer peak. And a lot of people, including seniors, are still recommended really actually to get two vaccines a year. So many people are kind of coming due for that second update right now. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll keep watching that space. Moving on, as we kind of pointed out already, Congress is back in town, with just a couple weeks to go before the start of fiscal 2026 on Oct. 1. This was the year Congress was really, truly going to get all of its spending bills passed in time for the start of the new year. How’s that going, Jessie? 

Hellmann: It’s going great. I’m just kidding. There’s a lot of friction on the Hill right now. The White House budget chief is talking about doing more clawbacks of foreign aid, which is frustrating both Democrats and Republicans. It’s about $5 billion, and we’re seeing Democrats kind of start to put their neck out there a little more than they did earlier in the year when they were also kind of making noise about government funding. And they’re now saying that Republicans are going to have to go this alone and they’re not going to support partisan spending bills. So it’s kind of difficult to see where we go from here. And then鈥 

Rovner: Are we looking at a shutdown on Oct. 1? I mean, that’s what happens if the spending bills aren’t done. 

Hellmann: It’s hard to say. There might be a short-term spending bill, but anything longer-term than that, it seems really difficult at this point. And there are just massive differences between the health bills that the House came out with and the Senate came out with. I mean, there’s differences in all the other appropriations bills, too, but I was just going to focus on health. 

Rovner: Yes, please. 

Hellmann: The Senate bill would allow an increase for HHS, and the House bill would cut it pretty significantly. So it’s kind of hard to see how they could do anything more substantive when there’s so much light between the two. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, on the one hand, we have both the Senate and the House subcommittee that’s marked up the Labor HHS [Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies] appropriation on record as not supporting at least the very deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health that were proposed by President Trump. But on the other hand, as you mentioned, we still have the administration, primarily budget office chief Russell Vought, making the case that the administration doesn’t have to spend money that Congress appropriates. And from all we can tell, at least as of now, there’s a lot of money that won’t be spent as of the end of the fiscal year, despite the fact that that is illegal. It’s known as a pocket rescission, a term I think we’re about to hear a lot more about. Alice, you referred to this earlier: Is Congress just going to quietly ignore the fact that the administration is usurping their power? 

Ollstein: I think that in many areas of politics, there is a faction that wants to play hardball and really use whatever leverage is possible and there’s a faction that wants to play nice and try to get what they can get by negotiation. And I think both parties always fear being blamed for shutdowns, and so that drives a lot of it. But I think there’s mounting frustration with Democratic leadership about not playing hardball enough. I mean, the jokes I hear are Democrats like to bring a spreadsheet to a gunfight, just seen as being unwilling, in the face of what many see as lawlessness, being unwilling to really put a check on that using the levers they have, including this federal spending. But I think we’ve seen that there are risks no matter what they do, and so I think people make reasonable points about the pros and cons of various strategies. 

Rovner: Well, we know that [Sen.] Susan Collins, who’s now the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is very, very concerned 鈥 because Susan Collins is always very, very concerned. But she’s the one whose power is basically being thwarted at this point. People have gotten a lot of gray hair waiting for Susan Collins to stand up and be combative, but one would think if there was ever a time for her to do it, this would be it. Jessie, are we seeing, I was going to say, any indication that the appropriators are going to say, Hey, this is our job and our constitutional responsibility, and you’re supposed to do what we say when it comes to money

Hellmann: They are saying these things. I feel like we are seeing more Senate Republicans, at least, express discomfort with what the Trump administration is doing, saying things like: This is Congress’ job. We have the power of the purse. And then they are passing some of these spending bills through committee. But what else are they supposed to do? Unless Susan Collins wants to get on Fox News and start screaming about government funding, which I don’t really see happening and I don’t know if it would be effective, you kind of just wonder: What other options do they have at this point? 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we’ll sort of see how this plays out over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, it’s not just the spending bills that Congress is facing deadlines for. This month is basically the last chance to re-up those, quote, “expanded subsidies” for Affordable Care Act plans before the sticker shock hits 24 million people in the face. Not only are premiums going up by an average of 18% from this year to next 鈥 that’s for a lot of reasons: increasing costs of health care, tariffs, drug prices 鈥 but eliminating those additional subsidies, or actually letting them expire, will cause some people to have to pay double or triple what they pay now. And it’s going to hit folks in red states like Georgia and Florida and Texas even harder because more folks there are on the Affordable Care Act plans, because those states didn’t expand Medicaid. Do Republicans not understand what’s about to happen to them? 

Hellmann: I think they understand, but they keep acting like there’s no urgency to the situation. They keep saying: We still have time. We have till the end of the year. Which I guess is technically true, but we’re already seeing insurers proposing these giant rate hikes. And it’s not easy to just go back and make changes to some of this. I guess the idea is鈥 

Rovner: So they really don’t have until the end of the year, though. Because people are going to get, they’re going to see the next year’s premiums that they have to start signing up in November. So, I mean, they basically have this month. 

Ollstein: If there’s uncertainty, they’re going to price very conservatively, aka high. They don’t want to be left holding the bag. And so, yeah, you and Jessie are exactly right that there isn’t time. These decisions are being made now. Even if they pass something to kick the can until after the midterms, I think some damage will already have been done. 

Rovner: Yeah. Jessie, I cut you off, though. I mean, the idea is that sort of their one chance to maybe do this before people actually start to get these bills, or at least see what they’re going to have to pay, would be wrapped into this end-of-fiscal-year continuing resolution. And maybe they can kick the appropriations down the road until November or December, but they can’t really kick the question of the subsidies down the road until November or December. 

Hellmann: Yeah. I think something would have to happen really quickly. We’re seeing some politically vulnerable Republicans, in the House, specifically, say that they want at least a year-long extension. It’s just a really difficult issue. We know, obviously, the Freedom Caucus is already making threats about it. They hate the ACA, maybe more than anything. It’s going to be really interesting how this turns out. I’ve also heard that maybe there might be a paired-back version of an extension that they could do, maybe messing with some of the income parameters. But I don’t know if that kind of compromise would be enough unless Republicans work with Democrats, which as we already said is complicated for other reasons. So it’s just a mess right now. 

Rovner: I love September on Capitol Hill. All right, finally this week it will launch a pilot program next January to test the use of artificial intelligence to perform prior authorization for Medicare fee-for-service patients in six states. The program is aimed at just a handful of services right now that are considered to be often wasteful and of dubious value to patients. So, honestly, what could possibly go wrong here? This is a serious question. I mean, isn’t using AI to do prior authorization what got a lot of these private health plans in trouble over the last year? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they did. UnitedHealthcare I think is sort of infamous for that. There was a lot of irony when they first announced this concept of doing a little more prior auth, essentially, in Medicare. It came right after they made another announcement where they were trying to say, We’re actually going to crack down on prior authorization for a health plan. So there’s a bit of, and I think they were trying to not have the, in this second announcement, not have the words “prior auth,” so that they kind of could get wins on both levels. Because I think they know that prior authorization is generally not popular with health consumers. People see it as kind of a barrier to care that their doctor has said they need and is largely stopped because of cost reasons. And then I think once you add in this idea that artificial intelligence is doing it, not a human being, I think people have less trust that it’s being done in the proper way and really that they’re stopping inappropriate care. 

Rovner: Well, to paraphrase RFK Jr. at the Senate Finance hearing, who said many times, both things can be true, even if they are contradictory. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast 51视频 Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest 51视频 Health News “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back. 

Tony Leys: Glad to be here. Thanks, Julie. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got a literal mouthful when she went to photograph the night sky in Arizona. Who is she and what happened? 

Leys: While Erica Kahn was taking photos at Glen Canyon last summer, a bat flew up, landed on her, and jammed itself between her camera and her face. Kahn screamed, as anyone would, and the bat went into her mouth. It only was in there for a few seconds, and she didn’t feel a bite. But she feared it could have infected her with a rabies virus, which bats frequently carry. 

Rovner: Yeah, not a great thing. So as with any run-in with a bat, Erica wisely reported to the nearest emergency room for preventive rabies treatment, which we know from previous “Bills of the Month” can total many thousands of dollars. How much did her treatment cost? 

Leys: Nearly $21,000, mostly for a series of vaccinations and other treatments, over the course of two weeks, aimed at preventing the deadly virus from gaining a foothold. 

Rovner: Yikes. 

Leys: Yikes, indeed. 

Rovner: Now, the problem here wasn’t so much that she was charged as what her insurance status was. What was her health insurance status? 

Leys: Well, Kahn had been laid off from her job as a biomedical engineer in Massachusetts, and she had turned down the COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] plan, which would’ve allowed her to stay on her employer’s insurance plan. The plan would’ve cost her about $650 a month, which seemed too much for her. And she was a young, healthy adult who was confident that she would quickly find a new job with health insurance. She also thought that if she became ill in the meantime, she could buy a private plan that would cover preexisting health conditions. 

Rovner: Yeah. That was the big problem, right? 

Leys: Right. 

Rovner: So what did she do? And then what happened? 

Leys: So before she went to the hospital for rabies prevention treatment, she signed up for a policy she found online. The policy, which she thought was full-fledged health insurance, apparently wasn’t. But she says the company selling it told her it would cover treatment of a life-threatening emergency, which this sure seemed to be. But the company later declined to cover any of the bills, citing a 30-day waiting period for coverage. 

Rovner: Yeah. Now, I mean, you can’t generally buy any kind of insurance after an insurable event happens. You can’t buy fire insurance the day after a fire or car insurance the day after an accident. Health insurance is no different. Although in her case, she could have actually resumed her previous coverage through COBRA, right? How would that have worked? 

Leys: So after you lose coverage from an employer, you generally have 60 days to decide whether to sign up for COBRA coverage, which would be retroactive to the day your old policy lapsed. Khan was within that period when the bat went in her mouth. So she could have retroactively bought COBRA coverage, but she didn’t know about that option. 

Rovner: Yeah. A lot of people, they initially lose their job or they leave their job and they don’t take COBRA, because it’s really expensive, as a rule 鈥 because it’s employer insurance and employer insurance is usually pretty generous 鈥 and they think they don’t need it. But this is one of those cases where she actually probably could have gotten it covered, right? 

Leys: Right, right. And in fairness, I’d never heard about that 60-day thing, either, and I’ve covered this, so鈥 

Rovner: I had, but I was there when COBRA was started. So what’s the takeaway here about people who don’t have insurance or think they can buy it at the last minute? 

Leys: Well, two things. One is you should have health insurance. 

Rovner: Because you never know when a bat’s going to fly in your mouth. 

Leys: And that a bat in the mouth does not count as a preexisting condition. 

Rovner: True. 

Leys: We know that now. 

Rovner: And what happened with this bill? 

Leys: She is still trying to get it worked out. 

Rovner: And presumably she’s going to be paying it off for some time to come. 

Leys: That’s what it sounds like. Yep. 

Rovner: But she won’t get rabies. 

Leys: Nope. 

Rovner: So happy ending of a sort. Tony Leys, thank you so much. 

Leys: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you were the first to come up with your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it? 

Karlin-Smith: I picked a piece that ran in NPR from 51视频’s Blake Farmer, “,” because it’s about the one-year anniversary of my family getting lice from school. And I actually was exposed to this new reality, which is since I was in school, and it’s, I guess, a broader national policy that they no longer kick kids out of school once you see lice and make it kind of difficult before you can go back to school. And I guess the public health rationale is generally that lice is actually, while it’s quite itchy, it’s not really harmful. So trying to think about the best way to cause the least harm, letting kids stay in school while you treat the infection is seen as most appropriate now. 

But there’s been, as a story goes into, some pushback from parents who feel that then it’s just getting them in these cycles where they’re constantly getting lice and having to deal with it. And dealing with getting the shampoos and stuff for lice can be kind of costly. So I thought it was a slightly lighter health care story for people to think about in these times. 

Rovner: Yeah. Risks and benefits. Classic case of risks and benefits. Alice. 

Ollstein: Well, this is definitely more on the risks than the benefits side of things, but I have a very good piece from Vox. It’s an exclusive. It’s called “.” And so they talked to these scientists who were commissioned to compile all of the data about the risk of drinking alcohol to having cancer. And it was compiling high-quality data that was already out there. And it really shows that no amount of drinking is totally safe. Even a very small, moderate amount of drinking includes a cancer risk, and that goes up the more you drink. 

And now, according to this report, the administration is not going to publish this. The authors turned it in in March, and they’ve just been sitting on it and they said they have no plans to publish it. And this is coming as the alcohol industry does a lot of lobbying to try to prevent stuff like this from being put out in the public consciousness. I just found this really fascinating. Already the younger generations are drinking a lot less. And so there does seem to be a growing awareness of the health risks of even moderate drinking. But I think that anything that keeps people from seeing this information is worrying, although this report did say that they are planning on publishing it in a peer-reviewed medical journal, which they were always planning anyways. But not having the federal government’s backing is a big deal. 

Rovner: It’s not exactly “radical transparency” is what they’ve been talking about. Jessie. 

Ollstein: And it’s not exactly “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”]. They’re talking MAHA. They’re talking about lifestyle stuff. They’re talking about what you eat, but apparently not about what you drink. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: My story is from 51视频 Health News, from Bram Sable-Smith. It’s called “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle.” It is about what happens when providers and insurers have contract disputes. The one example in this story is in Missouri, and it kind of focuses on this family that’s caught in the middle of a dispute between the University of Missouri Health Care system and Anthem. And it means patients don’t get care. There’s not a lot of protections for them. There are provisions that were in the No Surprises Act kind of intended to ensure there was some continuity of care in these situations. But at least for this couple, they weren’t really able to access those protections. So unclear if those are working as intended. 

I just thought it was really interesting because it’s not a new problem, but it’s definitely something that we are hearing more and more. It just happened in the D.C .area a few weeks ago. It just happened in New York. And it kind of raises questions about: What are policymakers going to do about this? They complain about rising health care costs, but they don’t often do very much. They complain about competition and consolidation, and this is one of the effects of that. People lose access to care. So I thought this was a really interesting story. 

Rovner: Yeah. These are all the policy issues that policymakers are not working on but could be. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, Pratheek Rebala, and Sam Green. And it’s a deep data dive that found that more than 20,500 workers, or about 18% of the Health and Human Services Department workforce, have left or been pushed out in the first month of Trump 2.0. That includes more than a thousand regulators and safety inspectors and 3,000 scientists and public health specialists. The agency, in its official response to the story, said, quote, “Yes, we’ve made cuts 鈥 to bloated bureaucracies that were long overdue for accountability.” I guess we will have to see if America gets healthier. In the meantime, it’s good to have some data on where we were and now where we are at HHS. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks to our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. As always, you can email us your comments or questions at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging out these days? Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Kind of everywhere. At , , 鈥 @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky, , and still on X, . 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I am on X, . I’m also on . 

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to 51视频 Health News’ “What the Health?” on , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2083602
Watch: How Controversies Over Vaccine Changes Affect You /public-health/watch-cdc-vaccine-changes-celine-gounder/ Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:04:43 +0000

Céline Gounder, 51视频 Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation With Margaret Brennan” on Aug. 31 to discuss leadership changes at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and vaccine policy concerns. Gounder noted that the departures of top officials and confusion over how to get vaccines affect the public health of Americans. She pointed out that Americans may want to get vaccinated and stay healthy to avoid having to miss work or school.

She recently explored these issues in her article “Senior CDC Officials Resign After Monarez’s Ouster, Citing Concerns Over Scientific Independence.”

on CBS News and to read the transcript.

51视频 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 51视频鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 51视频 Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2082548