Maryland holds firm due to new law amid federal vaccine policy shake-up
A Maryland pediatrician is expressing deep concern after U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly dismissed all 17 members of a key federal vaccine advisory panel.
On June 9, RFK Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, announced that he had fired the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy.
The panel was composed of independent medical public health experts who review data and make national immunization recommendations.
Concerns after dismissal of federal vaccine advisory panel
Experts said Kennedy's move could weaken trust in vaccines and public health infrastructure.
"Before this week, we knew that the ACIP was full of epidemiologists, biologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists – people who had dedicated years and years, decades of their lives to studying vaccines. Their effectiveness, and really the importance," said Dr. Monique Soileau-Burke, District Vice Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Some fear he may attempt to replace the independent panel with members who share his anti-vaccine views, potentially altering future guidance around immunizations.
"We really base our clinical decisions on a daily basis, knowing that that panel is trustworthy and scientific-based research," Dr. Soileau-Burke said.
In recent months, Kennedy has also dropped CDC recommendations about routine COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. The decisions prompted backlash from the medical and science communities.
Maryland's protections for vaccine access
Despite changes at the federal level, Dr. Soileau-Burke said Maryland is better positioned than some other states due to new protections for vaccine access.
"In Maryland, we're very lucky in that our state actually recently passed legislation that went into effect on June 1," she said. "Medicaid, private insurances, [and] other providers will have to continue to cover the cost of all the recommended vaccines as of December 31, 2024, that were on the CDC's recommended list. So, in Maryland, I think we're in a better place than a lot of states."
The CDC confirmed that ACIP will still hold its planned meeting later in June, though it is expected to be led by new members.
Health policy experts said the decision not only risks weakening federal vaccine recommendations but could also slow response times during health threats, especially as the U.S. faces an upcoming school year.
Kennedy has claimed that the panel was plagued by "persistent conflicts of interest."
Medical organizations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, have dismissed those claims as "completely unfounded."
Dr. Soileau-Burke emphasized that the stakes are high, not just for individual families, but for entire communities.
"We're not just protecting our own children," she said. "We're protecting everyone's children. We're protecting grandmas who might be immunocompromised or other members of our community."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations
On Monday, Kennedy, long a vaccine skeptic, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On the social platform X, he promised not to replace the panel's experts with 'ideological anti-vaxxers.' On Wednesday, Kennedy Advertisement For years, Kennedy has argued that American children receive too many shots and has falsely claimed that vaccines are not tested in placebo-controlled studies. Critics fear he is now setting the stage for a rollback of federal recommendations. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 14, 2025. HAIYUN JIANG/NYT 'I'm very, very worried about young children in this country,' said Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine at the University of Washington and one of the committee members who was fired. If the panel's new members 'don't believe in vaccines, then I think it puts us in a very dangerous place.' Advertisement Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University, predicted that the new committee would move to pare back the childhood vaccination schedule 'relatively quickly.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in a message on X. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.' He also acknowledged that the panel would 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well.' The upheaval arrives as measles infections approach the highest level in decades; whooping cough has risen significantly, too, compared with this time last year. Steep cuts to global immunization programs also make it more likely that infectious diseases, such as polio, may reach American shores. Alarmed, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked Kennedy to provide all communications and documents related to the dismissal of the committee and a 'detailed description of the rationale for removing each individual' by June 24, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times. The American Medical Association called for an immediate reversal of the purge and resolved to 'identify and evaluate' alternative sources of advice on vaccines. It is unclear whether Kennedy will appoint more members -- there is no required minimum -- before the next scheduled meeting at the end of June. And no one can say whether or how the decisions of the reshaped panel may diverge from current recommendations. Advertisement But any softening of federal recommendations regarding vaccination would ripple through the nation in unpredictable ways. Access to the shots eventually may depend on where you live, which insurance policy you hold and which doctor you see, experts said. 'That obviously is going to decrease the number of people who are protected with these vaccines,' said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the health commissioner of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am concerned about what that means about herd immunity, what that means about outbreaks and infections.' Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover the cost of any vaccine recommended by the ACIP. Losing that endorsement means that some insurance companies may choose not to pay for immunizations. Nor could those shots be offered for free through the Vaccines for Children program. The measles vaccine can cost up to $250 and the four-dose polio series up to $340. 'You'd essentially have a two-tier system where people who have cash at hand can purchase their own vaccines if they're not recommended, and those who don't have the money may have to go without,' said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford University and one of the fired panelists. The panel could take a more measured approach, perhaps advising that a doctor's sign-off should be required for some immunizations. The vaccines program would still cover it, but reimbursement from private insurers would be more difficult to enforce, Hughes said. The Vaccines for Children program was created after a measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 led to tens of thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. More than half of the infected children were unvaccinated even though many had seen a doctor, because they could not afford the shots, according to the CDC. Advertisement Cutting back on free access to immunizations 'is not a strategy to even think about -- only vaccinating potentially the half of the population that has health insurance,' Chu said. If measles continues to resurge, for example, even vaccinated people will be at risk, she said. Vaccinations are not profitable for clinics, and reduced demand could mean that fewer places bother to offer the shots. 'In places where you know there's a large anti-vax sentiment, there may not be financial incentive, or any incentive, to keep those vaccines in stock,' she said. ACIP makes recommendations for immunizations. But the authority to mandate them rests with the states. Even if the federal government walked away from some recommendations, most, if not all, states are likely to maintain the current mandates for school-age children, said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials. 'Even where legislators are chipping away at requirements and mandates, there's a commitment to protect children,' she said. Still, she added, 'our members are very confused.' Now some scientists are considering establishing alternatives to federal guidance on vaccines. 'The new ACIP cannot be trusted to oversee unbiased and scientifically sound vaccine policy development,' said Michael Osterholm, a public health researcher at the University of Minnesota. He and other experts have formed a new group, called the Vaccine Integrity Project, to offer science-based advice on immunization. Members of the ACIP are usually vetted thoroughly. It took more than four months for Roberts, who was set to join the panel in July, to be accepted, and several more weeks to fill out at least 50 forms, including disclosures of conflict of interest. The committee's members typically rotate in staggered four-year terms to ensure some continuity and institutional memory. Advertisement Mina Zadeh, a CDC scientist, has been named to oversee the committee, but the rest of her team has not been set up. Staff members who lead the committee's work groups may meet with her 'starting early next week,' according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by the Times. But the panel's next meeting is scheduled to begin June 25. Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician and expert on vaccine policy, said he worried the new members could not be prepared on such short notice and without the help of previous members or CDC personnel. 'This raises the question of whether the goal here is for ACIP to be able to do its job,' he added. 'Kennedy has accused the prior committee members of conflicts of interest and for rubber-stamping things, but I think that's exactly what we're looking at with this group.' This article originally appeared in .
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Warning Issued Over $500 Million Loss From Medicaid Cuts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Minnesota's Medicaid Director has warned that the state could lose $500 million in federal funding a year if President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is passed in Congress. John Connolly said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Department of Human Services, "the bill currently on the table is inefficient, ineffective, and fundamentally unfair." Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment. Why It Matters President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" has sparked significant concern among some lawmakers, particularly over the subject of Medicaid. The tax bill would aim to cut around $600 billion from Medicaid, the federal program that provides health coverage to the country's most vulnerable, to enable the president to bring about $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that more than 10 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the bill is brought into law, and health experts and lawmakers have warned that this could result in worse health outcomes across the country and, over time, an increase in medical costs. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Katie Godowski/MediaPunch via AP What To Know Connolly said that hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans would lose their health coverage as a result, and that increases in medical debt could force some hospitals and clinics to close, leaving communities vulnerable. Around 250,000 in the state could lose their coverage, according to KFF estimates, and the Commonwealth Fund estimated 9,300 jobs would be lost. Connolly also pointed to the impact Trump's tax bill would have on family planning services in the state, as the legislation would provide no federal funding for them, alongside a $170 million cut for reproductive health services. According to a fact sheet shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, eligibility checks for the Medicaid program would also take place every six months instead of annually, which the Department said would double the workload for "backlogged" counties, "setting them up to fail." The Department added it "leads to enrollment churn where enrollees lose coverage as soon as their eligibility is reverified." Connolly also warned that the cuts would impact not only those who lose their Medicaid coverage but everyone in the state, as the increase in constituents without health coverage would lead to a reduction in preventative care and, in turn, a worsening of health outcomes that would ramp up medical costs for all. "If these cuts go forward, families will face impossible choices between caregiving and working, between food and medicine, and our hospitals, especially those in rural communities, will suffer and Minnesotans will fall through the cracks ultimately," Connolly said, according to the regional news outlet, InForum. Alongside proposed cuts in funding to Medicaid, Minnesota would be among one of the states penalized by Trump's tax bill for states for providing health coverage to undocumented migrants. The terms of the legislation would reduce the federal match rate for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in states providing health care for undocumented migrants from 90 percent to 80 percent. This would lead to a $330 million reduction in federal funding for the state, the Department of Human Services fact sheet reported. However, Minnesota has recently passed a budget bill suspending MinnesotaCare coverage for undocumented migrants starting from 2026, which is currently waiting to be signed off by Governor Tim Walz. What People Are Saying John Connolly, Medicaid director and deputy commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services: "[The bill] achieves its purported reductions by slashing federal Medicaid funding. But those reductions are actually a cost shift - to states, counties, Tribes, providers and people themselves who will have to pick up the expense of health care no longer covered and the cost of increased administrative burdens." What Happens Next Lawmakers in Congress will continue to deliberate over Trump's tax bill until the current scheduled deadline of July 4.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What If Something Happens To The Person In Control Of An Irrevocable Trust? Suze Orman Weighs In
When a listener named Kim wrote to Suze Orman's "Women & Money" podcast, she shared a common concern: Her family was overwhelmed by estate planning. Kim explained that her parents were considering setting up both a revocable trust and an irrevocable trust. Their goal? To stay in control of their assets while they're healthy and to potentially shield those assets — like their home and savings — if they ever need to enter a nursing home. But Kim and her family were confused. Would this strategy actually protect their assets? And what happens if the person managing the trust — known as the trustee — can't do the job anymore? Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Many are rushing to Orman encouraged Kim and her family to slow down and consider the bigger picture: "People first, then money, then things." That's been her mantra for more than two decades. While an irrevocable trust can, in some cases, protect assets from being counted for Medicaid eligibility, Orman pointed out a major trade-off: "It no longer is part of your estate. It's now out of your hands. Somebody else is in control of it — you are not." That loss of control can create problems down the line, especially if the trustee dies or becomes incapacitated. "What happens if something happens to the person who has control over it? It can become very, very complicated," Orman said. Trending: Invest where it hurts — and help millions heal:. Kim's family was also hoping the irrevocable trust would help cover nursing home care. Orman warned against relying on Medicaid as a solution. In her view, the quality of care for Medicaid patients often isn't comparable to that of private-pay residents. She pointed out that some nursing homes are already closing due to a lack of funding, and future changes to Medicaid or Medicare could make the situation worse. "To put this money, your parents' money, in front of their care just so you could be OK and have the money, the house can be protected, is not something that I advise," she said. While she was critical of irrevocable trusts in this situation, Orman did support the idea of a revocable trust — a legal tool that allows the creators (usually the parents) to stay in full control of their assets. If they become incapacitated, a successor trustee can step in. When they pass away, the assets can go directly to heirs without going through parents were on the right track by also looking into a durable power of attorney and healthcare directive — documents Orman includes in what she calls the "must-have documents" for every estate plan. Irrevocable trusts may sound like a great way to protect assets, but they come with significant limitations and long-term consequences — especially if the trustee can no longer serve. For families like Kim's, Orman's advice is clear: prioritize flexibility and personal care over trying to preserve wealth at all costs. A revocable trust, paired with essential legal documents, can offer both control and peace of mind as loved ones age. Read Next: Can you guess how many retire with a $5,000,000 nest egg? . Inspired by Uber and Airbnb – Deloitte's fastest-growing software company is transforming 7 billion smartphones into income-generating assets – Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article What If Something Happens To The Person In Control Of An Irrevocable Trust? Suze Orman Weighs In originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
