Connect with us

Science

CDC narrowly avoids making COVID-19 vaccine prescription-only

Published

on

CDC narrowly avoids making COVID-19 vaccine prescription-only

After a contentious discussion that at times referenced discredited theories, low-quality data and desperate pleas from physicians and patients to rely upon sound science, a key CDC committee opted Friday to weaken its existing recommendations on COVID-19 shots, while punting other vaccine decisions to a later date.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to pull back its current unequivocal recommendation that all adults get vaccinated against COVID-19 in favor of a process of “shared clinical decision making,” in which patients are encouraged to speak to a doctor, nurse or pharmacist first.

The group came extremely close to recommending that the COVID-19 vaccine be available by prescription only, with a 6-6 vote broken by chair Martin Kulldorff’s “no” vote. The group also postponed a vote on hepatitis B vaccination indefinitely, with some members arguing that a proposal to delay the first dose did not go far enough.

The two-day meeting’s chaotic atmosphere left even many close observers confused about what decisions the group actually made.

“What we’re seeing is what happens when individuals who don’t have a basic understanding about how vaccines are delivered are making these crucial policy decisions for the American public. They don’t know what they’re doing,” Dr. Sean O’Leary, chair of American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases, said Friday during a news conference over Zoom. “What we are getting from ACIP is confusion.”

Advertisement

On Thursday, the committee voted that children under the age of four receive the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine in two separate shots given at the same time, instead of a single dose.

It was a relatively minor change. Many pediatricians already do this in order to reduce the risk of febrile seizures.

But the meeting’s tone and the decisions the committee appeared poised to make profoundly worried many physicians and public health officials.

“The damage isn’t just in today’s specific votes, it’s in legitimizing this framework where these laboratory-based studies and theories based on misrepresented findings are given equal standing with robust population-level safety data,” Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University School of Medicine, said Friday. “Now every anti-vax group knows that they can package their claims and scientific-looking slides and cite some weird paper out of context, and then potentially get their concerns mandated into official medical documents.”

The COVID-19 discussion was led by Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at MIT Sloan and the lone member of the committee with no biomedical or clinical degree.

Advertisement

He began the discussion by making clear that the committee would take into account anecdotal evidence and unpublished reports in its decision making, together with rigorously researched data.

“We need to leverage all the relevant published and unpublished scientific, clinical and public health data, information and knowledge, including experiences from the field. We are going to focus on personalized risk benefit analysis, and we’re going to very much stay away from the narratives or the statements about ‘safe and effective,’” said Levi, who has stated that mRNA vaccines are deadly and should be pulled from the market. “We don’t believe that these are appropriate or scientific language to talk about the issues related to vaccination.”

At one point, a microphone caught someone in the meeting muttering “idiot” as Levi was talking. It was not clear who the speaker was.

The group voted unanimously to postpone any changes to hepatitis B vaccination. Vaccine skeptics appointed to the committee said that a proposal to delay the first dose by a month didn’t go far enough.

ACIP member Vicky Pebsworth, a nurse who serves as research director for the National Vaccine Information Center, an organization long criticized for promoting inaccurate information, criticized the CDC for glossing over side effects of hepatitis B vaccine such as fever, sleepiness and fussiness.

Advertisement

“These are not trivial reactions,” Pebsworth said. “I personally think we should be erring on the side of caution and adopt a more prudent vaccination policy.”

Hepatitis B has been nearly eliminated since the vaccine was introduced in 1991.

Up to 85% of babies born to infected mothers become infected themselves, and the risk of long-term effects from the disease is higher the earlier the infection is acquired.

Infants infected in the first year of life have a 90% chance of developing chronic hepatitis B and 25% of those who do will die from complications such as liver cancer and cirrhosis, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Side effects from the vaccine are extremely rare, CDC scientists told the committee Thursday, and those that do occur tend to be mild.

Advertisement

Several committee members indicated they were unconvinced.

“There are gaps in what we know and understand about the effects of hepatitis B [vaccine], particularly on very young infants, and the conclusion that we know that it is safe is perhaps premature,” Pebsworth said.

At one point, she asked whether the irritability and fussing some babies showed at the time of the shot could be early symptoms of neurological problems stemming from the vaccine that hadn’t been studied.

At this, committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln pushed back.

“We have to vote on where there’s data of concrete harm or concrete benefit,” said Hibbeln, a psychiatrist who previously served as a section chief at the National Institutes of Health. “We’re going beyond data, and we’re turning into a discussion of speculation and possible clinical outcomes for which we have no data.”

Advertisement

The American Academy of Pediatrics said in a news conference Thursday that it would continue to recommend that infants receive their first hepatitis B shot at birth.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, an association that includes major U.S. insurers such as Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, Cigna and several Blue Cross and Blue Shield groups, announced this week that its members would continue to cover all vaccines recommended by the CDC as of Sept. 1 through the end of 2026.

For most of its 61-year history, ACIP meetings have been dry, technical affairs in which committees of experienced physicians, public health officials and research scientists get deep into the weeds of vaccine and disease data.

The committee’s role in vaccine insurance coverage and availability in the U.S. is paramount. Insurers are only required to cover vaccines the CDC endorses, though they can choose to cover others as well. The committee’s recommendation has typically set the vaccine schedule followed by schools and physicians. It also determines what vaccines are covered by the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program, which pays to immunize nearly half the nation’s children.

Previously, the committee collaborated year-round with expert working groups like the American Medical Assn., the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America to craft its recommendations and guidelines. Members also served staggered terms, so that new people coming on always joined colleagues with previous experience, and often went through more than a year of vetting.

Advertisement

But Kennedy fired the entire 17-member committee in June, and then informed medical groups they were no longer invited to review scientific evidence and advise the committee in advance of the meeting.

With the exception of Dr. Cody Meissner, who served on ACIP under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of the members are new.

The lack of experience showed.

The group started the day by redoing a vote they’d hurriedly cast the previous afternoon on whether public funding would continue to cover the combined MMRV shot, as several members confessed to not fully understanding the text of the measure they’d voted on. In the new vote, they determined that it would not.

In August, Kennedy fired CDC Director Susan Monarez, who was appointed to the position by President Trump. On Wednesday, Monarez told a Senate committee that Kennedy fired her in part because she refused to sign off in advance on changes he planned to make to the vaccine schedule this month, without seeing scientific evidence for them.

Advertisement

The ACIP’s recommendations become official only after the CDC director approves them. With Monarez out, that responsibility now goes to Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill, who is serving as the CDC’s acting director.

“This committee has focused on poorly done research that supports their preconceived anti-vaccine notions, rather than trying to truly weigh risks and benefits to get to the best decisions for American kids,” said Dr. Adam Ratner, a New York City pediatric infectious disease specialist. “This ACIP meeting demonstrates a sad deterioration of our public health systems, and real families and children will suffer as a result.”

Science

California confirms first measles case for 2026 in San Mateo County as vaccination debates continue

Published

on

California confirms first measles case for 2026 in San Mateo County as vaccination debates continue

Barely more than a week into the new year, the California Department of Public Health confirmed its first measles case of 2026.

The diagnosis came from San Mateo County, where an unvaccinated adult likely contracted the virus from recent international travel, according to Preston Merchant, a San Mateo County Health spokesperson.

Measles is one of the most infectious viruses in the world, and can remain in the air for two hours after an infected person leaves, according to the CDPH. Although the U.S. announced it had eliminated measles in 2000, meaning there had been no reported infections of the disease in 12 months, measles have since returned.

Last year, the U.S. reported about 2,000 cases, the highest reported count since 1992, according to CDC data.

“Right now, our best strategy to avoid spread is contact tracing, so reaching out to everybody that came in contact with this person,” Merchant said. “So far, they have no reported symptoms. We’re assuming that this is the first [California] measles case of the year.”

Advertisement

San Mateo County also reported an unvaccinated child’s death from influenza this week.

Across the country, measles outbreaks are spreading. Today, the South Carolina State Department of Public Health confirmed the state’s outbreak had reached 310 cases. The number has been steadily rising since an initial infection in July spread across the state and is now reported to be connected with infections in North Carolina and Washington.

Similarly to San Mateo’s case, the first reported infection in South Carolina came from an unvaccinated person who was exposed to measles while traveling internationally.

At the border of Utah and Arizona, a separate measles outbreak has reached 390 cases, stemming from schools and pediatric centers, according to the Utah Department of Health and Human Services.

Canada, another long-standing “measles-free” nation, lost ground in its battle with measles in November. The Public Health Agency of Canada announced that the nation is battling a “large, multi-jurisdictional” measles outbreak that began in October 2024.

Advertisement

If American measles cases follow last year’s pattern, the United States is facing losing its measles elimination status next.

For a country to lose measles-free status, reported outbreaks must be of the same locally spread strain, as was the case in Canada. As many cases in the United States were initially connected to international travel, the U.S. has been able to hold on to the status. However, as outbreaks with American-origin cases continue, this pattern could lead the Pan American Health Organization to change the country’s status.

In the first year of the Trump administration, officials led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have promoted lowering vaccine mandates and reducing funding for health research.

In December, Trump’s presidential memorandum led to this week’s reduced recommended childhood vaccines; in June, Kennedy fired an entire CDC vaccine advisory committee, replacing members with multiple vaccine skeptics.

Experts are concerned that recent debates over vaccine mandates in the White House will shake the public’s confidence in the effectiveness of vaccines.

Advertisement

“Viruses and bacteria that were under control are being set free on our most vulnerable,” Dr. James Alwine, a virologist and member of the nonprofit advocacy group Defend Public Health, said to The Times.

According to the CDPH, the measles vaccine provides 97% protection against measles in two doses.

Common symptoms of measles include cough, runny nose, pink eye and rash. The virus is spread through breathing, coughing or talking, according to the CDPH.

Measles often leads to hospitalization and, for some, can be fatal.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Trump administration declares ‘war on sugar’ in overhaul of food guidelines

Published

on

Trump administration declares ‘war on sugar’ in overhaul of food guidelines

The Trump administration announced a major overhaul of American nutrition guidelines Wednesday, replacing the old, carbohydrate-heavy food pyramid with one that prioritizes protein, healthy fats and whole grains.

“Our government declares war on added sugar,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a White House press conference announcing the changes. “We are ending the war on saturated fats.”

“If a foreign adversary sought to destroy the health of our children, to cripple our economy, to weaken our national security, there would be no better strategy than to addict us to ultra-processed foods,” Kennedy said.

Improving U.S. eating habits and the availability of nutritious foods is an issue with broad bipartisan support, and has been a long-standing goal of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement.

During the press conference, he acknowledged both the American Medical Association and the American Assn. of Pediatrics for partnering on the new guidelines — two organizations that earlier this week condemned the administration’s decision to slash the number of diseases that U.S. children are vaccinated against.

Advertisement

“The American Medical Association applauds the administration’s new Dietary Guidelines for spotlighting the highly processed foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, and excess sodium that fuel heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic illnesses,” AMA president Bobby Mukkamala said in a statement.

Continue Reading

Science

Contributor: With high deductibles, even the insured are functionally uninsured

Published

on

Contributor: With high deductibles, even the insured are functionally uninsured

I recently saw a patient complaining of shortness of breath and a persistent cough. Worried he was developing pneumonia, I ordered a chest X-ray — a standard diagnostic tool. He refused. He hadn’t met his $3,000 deductible yet, and so his insurance would have required him to pay much or all of the cost for that scan. He assured me he would call if he got worse.

For him, the X-ray wasn’t a medical necessity, but it would have been a financial shock he couldn’t absorb. He chose to gamble on a cough, and five days later, he lost — ending up in the ICU with bilateral pneumonia. He survived, but the cost of his “savings” was a nearly fatal hospital stay and a bill that will quite likely bankrupt him. He is lucky he won’t be one of the 55,000 Americans to die from pneumonia each year.

As a physician associate in primary care, I serve as a frontline witness to this failure of the American approach to insurance. Medical professionals are taught that the barrier to health is biology: bacteria, viruses, genetics. But increasingly, the barrier is a policy framework that pressures insured Americans to gamble with their lives. High-deductible health plans seem affordable because their monthly premiums are lower than other plans’, but they create perverse incentives by discouraging patients from seeking and accepting diagnostics and treatments — sometimes turning minor, treatable issues into expensive, life-threatening emergencies. My patient’s gamble with his lungs is a microcosm of the much larger gamble we are taking with the American public.

The economic theory underpinning these high deductibles is known as “skin in the game.” The idea is that if patients are responsible for the first few thousand dollars of their care, they will become savvy consumers, shopping around for the best value and driving down healthcare costs.

But this logic collapses in the exam room. Healthcare is not a consumer good like a television or a used car. My patient was not in a position to “shop around” for a cheaper X-ray, nor was he qualified to determine if his cough was benign or deadly. The “skin in the game” theory assumes a level of medical literacy and market transparency that simply doesn’t exist in a moment of crisis. You can compare the specs of two SUVs; you cannot “shop around” for a life-saving diagnostic while gasping for air.

Advertisement

A 2025 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation points to this reality, finding that up to 38% of insured American adults say they skipped or postponed necessary healthcare or medications in the past 12 months because of cost. In the same poll, 42% of those who skipped care admitted their health problem worsened as a result.

This self-inflicted public health crisis is set to deteriorate further. The Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 15 million people will lose health coverage and become uninsured by 2034 because of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace cuts. That is without mentioning the millions more who will see their monthly premiums more than double if premium tax credits are allowed to expire. If that happens, not only will millions become uninsured but also millions more will downgrade to “bronze” plans with huge deductibles just to keep their premiums affordable. We are about to flood the system with “insured but functionally uninsured” patients.

I see the human cost of this “functional uninsurance” every week. These are patients who technically have coverage but are terrified to use it because their deductibles are so large they may exceed the individuals’ available cash or credit — or even their net worth. This creates a dangerous paradox: Americans are paying hundreds of dollars a month for a card in their wallet they cannot afford to use. They skip the annual physical, ignore the suspicious mole and ration their insulin — all while technically insured. By the time they arrive at my clinic, their disease has often progressed to a catastrophic event, from what could have been a cheap fix.

Federal spending on healthcare should not be considered charity; it is an investment in our collective future. We cannot expect our children to reach their full potential or our workforce to remain productive if basic healthcare needs are treated as a luxury. Inaction by Congress and the current administration to solve this crisis is legislative malpractice.

In medicine, we are trained to treat the underlying disease, not just the symptoms. The skipped visits and ignored prescriptions are merely symptoms; the disease is a policy framework that views healthcare as a commodity rather than a fundamental necessity. If we allow these cuts to proceed, we are ensuring that the American workforce becomes sicker, our hospitals more overwhelmed and our economy less resilient. We are walking willingly into a public health crisis that is entirely preventable.

Advertisement

Joseph Pollino is a primary care physician associate in Nevada.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • High-deductible health plans create a barrier to necessary medical care, with patients avoiding diagnostics and treatments due to out-of-pocket cost concerns[1]. Research shows that 38% of insured American adults skipped or postponed necessary healthcare or medications in the past 12 months because of cost, with 42% reporting their health worsened as a result[1].

  • The economic theory of “skin in the game”—which assumes patients will shop around for better healthcare values if they have financial responsibility—fails in medical practice because patients lack the medical literacy to make informed decisions in moments of crisis and cannot realistically compare pricing for emergency or diagnostic services[1].

  • Rising deductibles are pushing enrollees toward bronze plans with deductibles averaging $7,476 in 2026, up from the average silver plan deductible of $5,304[1][4]. In California’s Covered California program, bronze plan enrollment has surged to more than one-third of new enrollees in 2026, compared to typically one in five[1].

  • Expiring federal premium tax credits will more than double out-of-pocket premiums for ACA marketplace enrollees in 2026, creating an expected 75% increase in average out-of-pocket premium payments[5]. This will force millions to either drop coverage or downgrade to bronze plans with massive deductibles, creating a population of “insured but functionally uninsured” people[1].

  • High-deductible plans pose particular dangers for patients with chronic conditions, with studies showing adults with diabetes involuntarily switched to high-deductible plans face 11% higher risk of hospitalization for heart attacks, 15% higher risk for strokes, and more than double the likelihood of blindness or end-stage kidney disease[4].

Different views on the topic

  • Expanding access to health savings accounts paired with bronze and catastrophic plans offers tax advantages that allow higher-income individuals to set aside tax-deductible contributions for qualified medical expenses, potentially offsetting higher out-of-pocket costs through strategic planning[3].

  • Employers and insurers emphasize that offering multiple plan options with varying deductibles and premiums enables employees to select plans matching their individual needs and healthcare usage patterns, allowing those who rarely use healthcare to save money through lower premiums[2]. Large employers increasingly offer three or more medical plan choices, with the expectation that employees choosing the right plan can unlock savings[2].

  • The expansion of catastrophic plans with streamlined enrollment processes and automatic display on HealthCare.gov is intended to make affordable coverage more accessible for certain income groups, particularly those above 400% of federal poverty level who lose subsidies[3].

  • Rising healthcare costs, including specialty drugs and new high-cost cell and gene therapies, are significant drivers requiring premium increases regardless of plan design[5]. Some insurers are managing affordability by discontinuing costly coverage—such as GLP-1 weight-loss medications—to reduce premium rate increases for broader plan members[5].

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending