Connect with us

Science

CDC committee drops hep B vaccine for all newborns over objections from health officials

Published

on

CDC committee drops hep B vaccine for all newborns over objections from health officials

A key vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted Friday to drop a decades-old recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B, the committee’s most controversial decision since its overhaul by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in June.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 8 to 3 to adopt “individual-based decision making” for the newborn hep B vaccine dose for babies born to women who test negative, as are more than 99% of babies born in the U.S.

The move was met with condemnation by physicians and public health officials, including some on the committee. The CDC has recommended the shot since 1991, resulting in a 99% decline in rates of chronic hepatitis B infections in children and teens.

“‘Do no harm’ is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording,” said Dr. Cody Meissner, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, who cast one of the few dissenting votes.

Advertisement

“This has a great potential to cause harm, and I simply hope the committee will accept this responsibility when that harm is caused,” said fellow no-vote Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist formerly with the National Institutes of Health.

The committee spent the rest of Friday discussing the childhood and adolescent vaccination schedule. Comments from invited speakers and some committee members suggested that further revisions to the nation’s inoculation practices could be in store.

“Cumulative risk across the entire childhood vaccine schedule [is] a risk for which we do not have adequate data,” said committee vice chair Dr. Robert Malone, who contributed to early mRNA research but has since made a number of false and discredited assertions about flu and COVID-19 shots. “The potential cumulative risk” of childhood vaccines, he said, was “the elephant in the room.”

While CDC subject-matter experts were excluded from the meeting’s agenda, its second day began with a presentation from Aaron Siri, a leading antivaccine lawyer who has previously worked as Kennedy’s personal attorney.

Following a presentation in which Siri urged the committee to “end mandates” and “de-politicize vaccines,” Meissner called the attorney’s comments “a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.”

Advertisement

“You know how to present the facts that are favorable to you or to your client,” he added. “But for you to come here and make these absolutely outrageous statements about safety, I think it’s a big disappointment to me, and I don’t think you should have been invited.”

On X, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) criticized Siri’s presence, saying, “Siri is a trial attorney who makes his living suing vaccine manufacturers. He is presenting as if an expert on childhood vaccines. The ACIP is totally discredited. They are not protecting children.”

Changing the decades-old hep B recommendation has been a long-standing goal for vaccine opponents.

A planned vote on the issue at the committee’s meeting in September was tabled after fierce disagreement among members. When the discussion resumed Thursday, it repeatedly devolved into shouting.

“We’re trying to evaluate a moving target,” said Hibbeln, one of the move’s strongest opponents, during the meeting.

Advertisement

Although a change in the current recommendation would not bar newborns from receiving the vaccine, Medicaid and other public insurance programs would no longer be required to cover it, putting a birth dose out of reach for millions of poor families and complicating access for many others.

Unlike most vaccine-preventable diseases, such as whooping cough and chickenpox, hepatitis B is typically asymptomatic, often spreading silently until midlife, when 1 in 4 infected people develop liver cancer or cirrhosis.

“It’s one of the cancers with the highest mortality in the U.S.,” said Dr. Su Wang, medical director of Viral Hepatitis Programs and the Center for Asian Health at the Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey, who lives with the disease. “The life expectancy we give people is six months on average.”

Opponents of the current vaccine guidance — among them, Kennedy, surgeon general nominee Casey Means and President Trump — characterize the virus as the result of high-risk “adult” behavior, including sex and IV drug use.

“Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted,” Trump said at a White House news conference in September. “There’s no reason to give a baby that’s almost just born hepatitis B.”

Advertisement

But experts say that’s not how most people get the disease.

“It’s primarily transmitted mother to child,” said Dr. Chari Cohen, president of the Hepatitis B Foundation.

A majority of infected mothers are immigrants — particularly from the Philippines, China and Vietnam — making birth-dose vaccination an urgent priority for many California families.

Los Angeles County has recorded only a single case of perinatal Hep B transmission in the last five years, thanks in part to universal vaccination, the county health department said.

For some administration officials and panel members, the disease’s prevalence in immigrant communities is a talking point.

Advertisement

“The elephant in the room is immigration — we have had years of illegal immigration, undocumented people coming from higher-endemicity countries,” said Dr. Evelyn Griffin, one of the panel’s most vocal proponents of the change.

“We have problems adults need to solve with our resources there, rather than asking babies to solve this problem for us,” she said.

Griffin and other opponents of the current vaccine schedule say inoculating everyone places an unfair burden on healthy newborns from nonimmigrant families whose mothers have either screened negative or have few risk factors for the disease.

But experts say the proposed alternative of universal prenatal testing and aggressive risk assessment is unrealistic in the current American healthcare system. Today, less than 85% of mothers are screened — a number experts say will fall sharply if health subsidies disappear and Medicaid enrollment is cut in coming months.

“Our previous risk-based vaccination strategy failed,” said Katrin Werner Perez of the Alliance for Aging Research. “Prior to the 1991 change to universal vaccination, nearly 20,000 babies and children were infected annually in the U.S.”

Advertisement

For babies exposed to the blood-borne virus in utero or during delivery, every minute the shot is delayed heightens the risk of transmission. That reality prompted American public health officials to bump the first dose from early childhood, when it was given in the 1980s, to the first 24 hours of life, a recommendation the CDC has maintained since 1991.

“[The vaccine] saved thousands, if not millions of lives just in the U.S.,” Cohen said. “There’s more safety and efficacy data on the hepatitis B vaccine than just about anything else we put into our bodies.”

Those who catch hepatitis as infants are far more likely than those who get it as adults to develop chronic and ultimately fatal infections, data show.

Because the virus can live on surfaces for up to a week, doctors and public health experts stress that babies can contract it even from seemingly trivial exposures. Caregivers might not know they have the disease, and are unlikely to be tested, making the birth dose more urgent, they said.

“Mom is not the only person around the baby,” said Wang, who told the panel on Thursday she likely acquired the disease from her grandparents. “There’s grandparents, caregivers, other young children. You’re basically leaving that baby vulnerable.”

Advertisement

Even a small cut from shared nail clippers risks infection, data show.

Kennedy and his allies on the panel counter that the vaccine is unnecessary for most infants, and that delaying it would offer parents the opportunity to participate in “shared clinical decision-making” about whether and when to vaccinate.

Still, the panel has so far struggled to coalesce around an alternative recommendation. A planned vote Thursday was tabled in part because proposed language remained in flux even as the meeting was underway.

“This is the third version of the questions that most of the ACIP have received in 72 hours,” Hibbeln said.

Hibbeln and Meissner were vocal opponents of a change to the birth-dose recommendation when it was first debated in September.

Advertisement

“We will be creating new doubts in the mind of the public that are not justified,” Meissner said.

Others said the move would not go far enough.

“I don’t see even where is the argument to vaccinate younger children at all that live in a normal environment,” panelist Dr. Retsef Levi said in September.

In addition to limiting public coverage for the vaccine, a change to the recommendation could also force privately insured parents to navigate layers of complex authorizations in order to access a birth dose, experts warned.

Many feared the decision could further stigmatize the shot in a moment when many parents are refusing it simply because the recommendation is under review.

Advertisement

“States and hospitals are reporting declines in hepatitis B vaccination,” said Kayla Inthabandith of the Center for Advancing Health Equity in Rural and Underserved Communities. “Even some mothers living with hepatitis B are refusing the birth dose, putting their own infants at the highest risk of infection.”

Moving the recommendation from the first day of life to the second month could lead to 1,400 new infections a year, experts warned.

“Any child who gets a hepatitis B infection because we change policy is one too many,” said Dr. Judith Shlay. “I want us to make sure we never have any child get hepatitis B infection.”

Advertisement

Science

Emergency room visits during heat waves available to the public in ‘near-real time’ in L.A. County

Published

on

Emergency room visits during heat waves available to the public in ‘near-real time’ in L.A. County

For the first time, Los Angeles County residents can see how many people are ending up in emergency rooms, their bodies pushed past the limit, during heat waves.

The county Department of Public Health says its new Heat-Related Illness and Mortality Dashboard will provide heat illness counts in “near real time,” which means weekly. That might seem like a lag, but until now the data were only provided upon request and in ad hoc reports.

Heat is the leading cause of weather-related death in the United States and heat waves are only getting more frequent and intense as the climate changes.

Public health experts called the tracker a meaningful step toward assessing how well county programs are addressing heat risks.

Advertisement

“It’s showing the county’s commitment to reducing the burden of heat on people’s health,” said David Eisenman, director of UCLA’s Center for Public Health and Disasters. “As the county puts more resources into that, this is a metric that allows the public to judge the effectiveness of the work.”

“There’s a handful of other places that also do this, but they’re all relatively new,” said Bharat Venkat, director of the UCLA Heat Lab, noting as examples Imperial and Riverside counties in California, Harris County in Texas and Maricopa County in Arizona. “It is very much welcome.”

The tracker takes heat illness data from patient complaints and doctor diagnoses provided by a countywide monitoring project that was previously available only to public health officials. The website says that what it provides is an undercount. The records often fail to count people when heat exacerbates more obvious health problems.

“Heat piggybacks off of preexisting health conditions,” Venkat said. “Say you go to the ER and you’re experiencing an intense psychotic episode, or a heart attack or a stroke. It’s very likely that the doctor is going to diagnose that as a psychotic episode, heart attack or stroke, and less likely that they’ll note that heat is contributing to that.”

Heat-related deaths are counted from death certificates, which present similar issues for undercounting. Those numbers will be reported monthly on the dashboard.

Advertisement

L.A. County has a recently approved heat action plan that aims to educate the public and reduce indoor and outdoor temperatures with strategies such as opting for shade and air conditioning.

The new tracker breaks down daily heat-related emergency room visits and deaths by age group, geography, and race and ethnicity.

It shows that people over 65 are more vulnerable to heat illness. For Black residents, heat is disproportionately fatal. And people in the San Fernando, San Gabriel, and Antelope valleys see the most heat-related emergency room visits.

Kelly Turner, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, stressed that heat sickness tracks closely with social inequality and is preventable.

“A heat death or heat illness is dependent on who you are and what assets you have,” Turner said. “If you have air conditioning or not, if you work outside or you don’t, all of those factors factor in.”

Advertisement

She noted that there is more risk in the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys because of the combination of hotter days and more people who are unprotected. “When you map those two things on top of each other, you get a hot spot of vulnerability,” she said.

California already has a tool called CalHeatScore that uses historical hospital records and temperatures to forecast risk for different ZIP Codes in the state during heat events.

Public health officials hope to use the new dashboard to target messaging and public outreach when extreme heat strikes.

“If we’re having an extended heat event we can show that, ‘Hey, we’re having heat impacts’ as they’re happening,” said Dr. Nicole Quick, chief science officer at the L.A. County Department of Public Health.

Venkat said he would like to see the tool become more robust, in line with Maricopa County’s dashboard, widely viewed as the current gold standard for heat illness and mortality tracking. He said the Arizona county, which includes Phoenix, dives deeper into health records and conditions surrounding hospitalizations and deaths to better reflect the role of heat.

Advertisement

“They do scene investigations and send someone out to take notes about where the body was found,” Venkat said. “What was going on? Did they have air conditioning? Were they outside? Did they have access to water? What medications were they taking? All those things provide important context.”

Eisenman said he would like to see the county train physicians on recording heat-related illness, as it has been “clear for a long time” that doctors don’t make the diagnosis enough.

“It would have to be more than just a handout or a few slides. You’d really have to have each institution make some effort to change physicians’ behaviors,” Eisenman said. He added that it probably hasn’t been done because of the costs involved.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

More middle-class Californians cancel health coverage after losing federal aid

Published

on

More middle-class Californians cancel health coverage after losing federal aid

Facing higher premiums and the loss of federal subsidies, 374,000 people with health insurance from the state marketplace known as Covered California canceled their coverage in the first three months of the year, according to government statistics.

The cancellations amount to 19% of those who had renewed their policies on the state marketplace during open enrollment, state officials said. Those cancellations are higher than in the past three years when they ranged from 13% to 15% of those who renewed.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, attributed the jump in cancellations to the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies that caused the cost of a plan to leap for most middle-class Californians.

“We expect coverage losses to increase through the year,” she said.

Overall, Covered California had 1.8 million enrollees in February, down from 1.94 million the year before — a decline of 7%.

Advertisement

Altman said monthly enrollment numbers are delayed because consumers have a three-month grace period to resume their premium payments before the insurance carriers end their coverage for nonpayment.

This year, many middle-class Californians who depend on the state-run insurance marketplace created under the Affordable Care Act faced annual costs that were hundreds of dollars higher than last year because of the end of enhanced federal subsidies that began during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2021, Congress voted to temporarily boost the amount of subsidies Americans could receive for an ACA plan.

The law also expanded the program to families who had more money. Before that 2021 vote, only Americans with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level — currently $62,600 a year for a single person or $128,600 for a family of four — were eligible for ACA subsidies. The 2021 vote eliminated the income cap and limited the cost of premiums for those higher-earning families to no more than 8.5% of their income.

On top of the loss of the enhanced federal subsidies, the average premium charged by insurers this year for a Covered California plan rose by more than 10% because of fast-rising medical costs.

Advertisement

The decline in ACA plan enrollees, however, has been greater in some other states. California has tried to keep people insured by using state tax money to fill in the gap for lower-income families.

This year, the state budgeted $190 million for premium subsidies for people with incomes of up to 165% of the federal poverty level.

In his budget plan, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed spending $300 million on those state subsidies in 2027. That would expand the subsidies to enrollees with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level, or $31,920 for an individual or $66,000 for a family of four.

“We may actually see a number of Covered California enrollees paying less in 2027” because of the additional state subsidies, Altman said.

In May, Newsom also proposed in his budget that an additional $27 million in state money be used to help enrollees pay for the cost of gender-affirming care. That amount is an increase to the $30 million that he earlier proposed be spent this year and next to defray those costs for Covered California enrollees, according to state officials.

Advertisement

Last year, federal health officials enacted a rule that said the federally subsidized ACA plans could no longer cover gender-affirming care because it was no longer considered an “essential health benefit.”

Newsom’s proposed budget still faces debate in Sacramento and approval by the state Legislature.

The state marketplaces, created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, were meant to help those who don’t have access to an employer’s health insurance plan and have incomes too high to qualify for Medi-Cal, the government-paid insurance for the poor and disabled.

Because of the higher cost this year, more people are choosing the lower-priced Bronze plans. Those plans have higher co-pays and deductibles than the more expensive plans.

“We’re very concerned with the large shift to Bronze,” Altman said. “When you have higher cost-sharing, you’re more likely to defer care.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Political play or budget fix? Competition for JPL’s management comes at a fraught moment

Published

on

Political play or budget fix? Competition for JPL’s management comes at a fraught moment

Weeks after Trump administration officials announced that management of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory would open to competitive bidding for the first time, questions remain as to why Caltech could lose control of the lab its researchers founded in 1936.

On one hand, observers note, high-profile delays and cost overruns on significant recent JPL projects earned sharp criticism from NASA even before the 2024 presidential election.

On the other, the second Trump administration’s record of squeezing scientific funding and attacking institutions in Democrat-led states make it difficult to consider any action separate from the charged political atmosphere, analysts say.

“My first instinct is that this [competition] isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s not written in stone that Caltech must run JPL, and it wouldn’t be the worst thing to have some competition for running the place,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the non-profit Planetary Society.

“That said, that requires this contract evaluation to be fair and unbiased, and this administration has no credibility in such things,” he added. “The responsibility is on NASA to earn the trust and ensure such an evaluation is open and free from political meddling. That’s almost impossible.”

Advertisement

JPL became part of NASA when the space agency was formed in 1958, and Caltech has been awarded the contract to run the institution outright ever since.

Its current 10-year contract with NASA, which is valued at up to $30 billion, runs through Sept. 30, 2028.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced the competition on May 22 as part of a slate of sweeping organizational changes at the space agency.

“When you step back, it is worth considering how many additional missions we could have undertaken with the resources lost to program cancellations and cost overruns over the years,” Isaacman wrote in a memo to staff. “That is the problem we must fix, so the American taxpayer and space-loving community can receive the highest scientific return on every dollar we spend at NASA.”

Competing the contract for JPL, the lone Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) in NASA’s portfolio, was an effort to address cost-efficiency concerns, Isaacman wrote.

Advertisement

“This process will take several years, and I do not anticipate it having any impact on the projects underway or the location of the facilities,” he wrote. “It does, however, provide an opportunity to evaluate management costs, overhead burdens, and ideally find ways to get after the science faster and more affordably.”

In a joint statement, Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and JPL Director Dave Gallagher said the competition was “no surprise” and that a team was already in place “to ensure we are positioned for success.”

In July, NASA’s Office of Procurement held an informational event for companies and institutions interested in the upcoming FFRDC contract.

The dozens of registered attendees included universities like USC, Texas A&M University and Georgia Tech, aerospace companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin and nonprofit corporations like MITRE, which manages several FFRDCs, and Universities Space Research Association, a university consortium founded by the National Academy of Sciences in 1969. (SpaceX, which has been awarded more than $13 billion in NASA contracts in the last decade, was not on the list.)

“Lockheed Martin has more than 50 years of deep space exploration success with JPL, supporting landmark missions to Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Pluto, including nearly a dozen missions to Mars,” said Bob Behnken, VP of Exploration and Technology Strategy. “We look forward to building on that unmatched partnership in the years ahead. We are closely following NASA’s review and will continue to assess how we can best contribute to the agency’s mission.”

Advertisement

Other attendees contacted by The Times declined to discuss their involvement.

Isaacman indicated that JPL could come under scrutiny even before he took over NASA. The billionaire entrepreneur referenced high costs at the La Cañada Flintridge institution in a memo prepared in advance of his confirmation hearings on his priorities for the space agency.

“Contract structure: Very expensive,” Isaacman wrote of JPL in a table outlining organizational issues at each of NASA’s centers. “Must increase the output and ‘time-to-science’ KPI.”

The institution has recently suffered a number of high-profile management stumbles.

After the JPL-managed Psyche mission to a metal-rich asteroid failed to meet its 2022 launch date, NASA commissioned an independent review that said internal reorganizations and personnel changes created distracted and uninformed managers and burned-out, stretched-thin staffers.

Advertisement

After a 2023 independent review found there was “near zero probability” of the JPL-managed Mars Sample Return mission making its proposed 2028 launch date, and “no credible” way to bring rocks back from the Red Planet within the stated budget, Isaacman’s predecessor Bill Nelson put out a call for proposals to industry and all other NASA centers, forcing JPL to compete for its own project.

After Trump’s election, Nelson announced that the final decision would be in the next administration’s hands.

The White House pushed for massive cuts to NASA’s 2026 budget that Congress overturned, and has lobbied for similarly steep cuts again this year. JPL has instituted painful cost-cutting measures of its own, reducing staffing from roughly 6,500 employees in 2023 to 4,500 last year through layoffs and attrition.

Its struggles come at a point when NASA is enthusiastically embracing private industry. Last month the agency awarded several key contracts for its upcoming lunar missions to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and other private companies.

Trump has also made no secret of his willingness to punish states that haven’t voted for him through job losses. In announcing his decision to move U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama, Trump acknowledged that his loss in Colorado in three presidential elections played a part in the move.

Advertisement

It’s impossible to consider any decision on JPL’s future separate from the administration’s track record of politically-motivated decisions, Dreier said.

“At the heart of this is why? Why now? If this is not just some rank political attack on California, what do they hope to gain from this?” Dreier said. “That deserves explanation, because the administration otherwise has no credibility here.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending