logo
RFK Jr.'s latest big move could leave you paying more for vaccines

RFK Jr.'s latest big move could leave you paying more for vaccines

Yahoo12-06-2025
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent shockwaves through the scientific community this week when he fired all 17 members of the federal government's key vaccine advisory board, raising concerns that he might try to replace them with immunization skeptics.
Those fears were confirmed for many on Wednesday when Kennedy unveiled eight new members who included some of the most prominent critics of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The swap could have wide-reaching public health consequences. But one of the most straightforward impacts may be on consumers' wallets.
That's because recommendations by the board — known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP — determine which vaccines most insurance plans are required to cover at zero cost, such as inoculation against measles or your annual flu shot. If the new members decide to reverse the panel's old guidance, patients could find themselves paying out of pocket for vaccines that were once available for free.
'For the average person who has never heard of ACIP before, this could affect their access to vaccines,' said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the healthcare think tank KFF.
Created in 1964, ACIP is the official outside panel of medical experts responsible for advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on what to include on its lists of routine shots for both children and adults. While its recommendations aren't binding, federal officials have typically adopted them.
As a result, the board's decisions carry enormous weight, affecting patients and parents, as well as the vaccines schools require for students. Over the years, the panel has played a growing role in determining insurance coverage as well.
By law, shots recommended by ACIP must be covered by the free Vaccines for Children program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D. The Affordable Care Act also requires private insurers to pay for vaccines with no cost sharing if they have the panel's seal of approval. (Past administrations have said the rule only applies if the CDC also adopts the board's recommendation.)
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Kennedy said his decision to replace the board was meant to fight a 'crisis of public trust' in vaccines by ridding the committee of what he described as 'persistent conflicts of interest.' (Kennedy's critics have argued that his allegations against ACIP's former members are unfounded.)
His new picks for the panel include several figures who rose to national fame by casting doubt on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Among them is Dr. Robert Malone, an accomplished scientist who did pioneering work on mRNA technology but later attacked its use in shots during the pandemic and who was at one point banned from Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation.
He'll be joined by Retsef Levi, an MIT business school professor who gained attention in 2023 for claiming there was 'indisputable evidence' ​​that 'MRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death,' and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who advocated letting COVID spread among younger Americans to achieve 'herd immunity' and was later let go from Harvard Medical after refusing to be vaccinated.
In his announcement, Kennedy said that each new member of ACIP was 'committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations' — suggesting they'll be less likely to add new shots to the government's immunization schedules.
But he added that the board will also 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,' raising the possibility that it will scrap some of its old recommendations.
Even before this week's shake-up, the government had already begun changing its recommendations on COVID shots. In May, the CDC dropped its recommendation that healthy pregnant women receive the vaccine and revised its guidance for young children, saying they should only receive it after consultation with a doctor.
Private insurers could still choose to cover vaccines even if the federal government stops recommending them. Whether they will is less certain. 'That's territory we haven't really had to traverse before,' said KFF's Kates.
Sarah Moselle, a vaccine market expert at the health industry consulting firm Avalere, said there may be some 'fragmentation' in how carriers approach the issue. Some may drop coverage entirely or begin requiring co-pays. But many 'do anticipate that they would continue to cover some vaccines,' even if they aren't required to, since it would 'add value' for their customers, she said.
In theory, insurers could also have an incentive to maintain vaccine coverage since it could keep their patients healthier and reduce the costs of their care, though it's unclear exactly how those savings would stack up against the added expense of paying for shots.
For many vaccines, the out-of-pocket cost might be relatively cheap for patients. But others could turn out to be steep.
Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that has been the focus of growing safety concerns among patients despite studies suggesting they're unfounded. Some experts told Yahoo Finance they thought the shot could be a target for more scrutiny under Kennedy's new ACIP. Currently, the shot is covered by insurance because it's recommended for pre-teens through young adults. The CDC lists its full price at over $300 a dose.
Even modest costs can dissuade patients from getting vaccinated, according to Loren Adler, associate director at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. 'We know that folks having to pay $10 for a vaccine limits the uptake somewhat,' he said. As a result, just a small increase in what patients have to pay out of pocket could have ripple effects on public health.
One issue to keep an eye on, according to Moselle, is whether state governments step in to require more extensive insurance coverage of vaccines if the federal government walks back some of its recommendations. If they do, vaccine access could start to vary more by where patients happen to live.
Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

Chicago Tribune

time19 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient.

NIH plans heat up animal testing debate
NIH plans heat up animal testing debate

Politico

time20 minutes ago

  • Politico

NIH plans heat up animal testing debate

WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya elaborated on his strategic priorities for the National Institutes of Health on Friday — and drew criticism from some animal rights advocates. His strategy focuses on plans Bhattacharya and his boss, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have previously touted, like prioritizing nutrition research, advancing artificial intelligence, focusing on research reproducibility and shifting to solutions-based health disparities research. 'Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, entrusted to NIH officials to invest in the nation's future,' Bhattacharya wrote in a statement published on NIH's website. 'By transparently establishing priorities and aligning our goals, we aim to demonstrate to the American public that we take this commitment seriously — and that we are doing all we can to honor their trust.' Falling short: But one priority area — moving away from animal testing in favor of alternative models and establishing an office to develop, validate and deploy those methods — was a sore point for animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. From PETA's vantage point, Bhattacharya's plan didn't go far enough. 'Dramatic change is essential, as we've seen how 'enhancing oversight' is a laugh-into-your-sleeve exercise, and 'considering non-animal methods' is a check box,' Kathy Guillermo, PETA's senior vice president of laboratory investigations, said in a statement. 'PETA urges him to remember that at the highest levels of the Trump administration, there are well-placed people rooting for NIH to break with career animal experimenters.' Animal testing state of play: In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a persistent critic of animal testing at the health agencies and co-sponsored 2022 legislation with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to permit drugmakers to use alternative methods to test their products. The health agencies have not shied away from the issue or from animal rights groups. Among the first policies that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration announced this spring was a move away from animal testing for research and drug development. According to public calendar disclosures, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with PETA in July. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. The Pete & Bobby Challenge. HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth are challenging Americans to complete 50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under 10 minutes. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. EXAM ROOM Health insurance companies pay vastly different prices for health services from one another— even when they're performed at the same hospital. Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, two of the largest health insurers in the U.S., negotiated rates for six inpatient procedures that varied by an average ratio of 9.1 nationwide, according to a report by health data analytics firm Trilliant Health. Sticker shock: The median rate for a coronary bypass — with no catheterization or major complications — is $68,194. However, negotiated rates ranged from $27,683 to $247,902. Rates even varied within the same health system. For example, Aetna pays $166,288 for a patient with diabetes to have major heart bypass surgery using a minimally invasive technique at Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, while UnitedHealthcare pays about half that rate. The report also found no correlation between aggregate measures of cost and quality within a sample of 10 top-tier hospitals. Health systems that have similar quality in care might have wildly different negotiated rates for the same health services, according to the report. High-quality care? The data raises questions about whether insurers deliver the best value for patient care. 'It actually creates a fiduciary duty for the employers to be using this sort of information to make sure they're providing high-value health benefits to their employees,' said Allison Oakes, chief research officer at Trilliant Health, who worked on the report. She believes that this data could help reduce some price disparity. 'The hope is we start to see some of this variation in prices shrink, which, without changing quality or access, could actually reduce spending by quite a bit,' she said. Unintended effect: Ben Handel, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that this kind of price transparency could lead to negotiated rates homogenizing. However, it might not necessarily bring down prices, he said. 'The other potential scenario is it raises prices,' he said. He notes that insurers' incentives vary by context. For example, when administrating a self-insured plan — where employers directly pay health costs and insurers provide only the network — they earn a percentage of each claim. 'Raising costs makes you more money,' said Handel.

Medical group goes against CDC, recommend COVID shots for young kids
Medical group goes against CDC, recommend COVID shots for young kids

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

Medical group goes against CDC, recommend COVID shots for young kids

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for children — but a major medical group is going against that guidance. On Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released its latest annual immunization schedule for children — and it includes vaccines for COVID-19, in addition to flu and RSV. "Infants and children 6 through 23 months of age are at the highest risk for severe COVID-19," the AAP states in its release. "Given this, the AAP recommends a COVID-19 vaccine for all children ages 6 through 23 months old to help protect against serious illness." The AAP also recommends a "single dose of age-appropriate COVID-19 vaccine" for kids and teens 2 and older who are at high risk of severe COVID, have never been vaccinated before, and who live with people who are at a high risk of severe disease. "The AAP also recommends the vaccine be available for children aged 2-18 who do not fall into these risk groups, but whose parent or guardian desires them to have the protection of the vaccine," the release states. "Among the reasons we decided to move to a risk-based recommendation for healthy older children is the fact that the hospitalization rate for young children and children with underlying medical conditions remains high, in line with rates for many of the other vaccine-preventable diseases for which we vaccinate," said Sean O'Leary, M.D., chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, in the release. In May 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines would be removed from the CDC's routine immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. Instead of a universal recommendation, the CDC's updated guidance calls for "shared clinical decision-making," in which parents and doctors discuss the benefits and risks of vaccination for each individual case. "Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the CDC's guidance states. In total, the AAP's schedule includes immunizations against 18 diseases, recommended for all children from birth to age 18. The AAP noted in a press release that its vaccine schedule "differs from recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC." For more Health articles, visit Other included updates involve the pentavalent meningococcal vaccine, the starting age of the human papilloma virus vaccine, and removal of a hepatitis vaccine that is no longer available, the release states.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store