logo
US Limits Covid Boosters To Over-65s Or Those At High Risk

US Limits Covid Boosters To Over-65s Or Those At High Risk

The United States will limit Covid-19 boosters to people over 65 or those at risk of serious illness, while requiring vaccine makers to run fresh clinical trials before offering shots to younger and healthier individuals, officials said Tuesday.
Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration's Vinayak Prasad and Commissioner Martin Makary framed the policy shift as "evidence-based" and would align the United States more closely with guidance in Europe.
But it comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, pushes to remake federal public health policy.
Kennedy previously led a nonprofit that was critical of immunization programs, and during the pandemic petitioned the FDA to revoke Covid vaccine authorizations, citing rare side effects including heart inflammation.
Prasad and Makary praised the initial Covid-19 vaccine rollout as "a major scientific, medical, and regulatory accomplishment," but argued that the benefits of repeated boosters for low-risk individuals are uncertain.
They criticized the US approach of recommending boosters for all adults regardless of age or health status, calling it a "one-size-fits-all" model based on the mistaken belief that Americans couldn't handle more nuanced, risk-based advice.
Rather than building public trust, they wrote, it had backfired -- fueling vaccine hesitancy that has spilled over into skepticism toward childhood shots, including those for measles.
The FDA said it would rely on lab test results to approve boosters for people who are over 65, or over six months old with at least one underlying condition.
But for healthy individuals between six months and 64 years, regulators will now require data from randomized trials.
"We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI (body mass index) who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," they wrote.
Some infectious disease experts welcomed the shift.
Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins University said it matched with the approach taken by other countries in a population that already carries significant immunity.
"For lower-risk individuals, the goal has always been less clear, as protection against infection is transient and they don't have a high risk of severe disease," he told AFP.
But others voiced concern about the practical consequences. Paul Offit, a leading vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said it could limit access for people who still want boosters.
"Any use, say in a healthy 35-year-old, would be considered off-label, and you wonder whether an insurance company would pay for it," he told AFP.
Under the revised framework, companies like Pfizer and Moderna will be encouraged to test updated boosters in adults aged 50 to 64.
These studies should measure whether the vaccines reduce symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths.
Rather than comparing new shots to earlier formulations, Prasad and Makary suggested placebo-controlled trials -- with saline as the comparator -- to better evaluate both benefit and potential side effects.
The proposal, first floated by Kennedy earlier this month, has proved divisive. Critics argue that using a placebo -- when authorized vaccines already exist -- could expose participants to unnecessary harm.
"Imagine if there was a death or two in the placebo group," said Offit. "I don't see how you conscience that."
Supporters of continued Covid-19 boosters often draw parallels to annual flu shots.
But Makary and Prasad pushed back on that comparison, arguing the genetic changes in Covid variants haven't been significant enough to justify automatically updating the vaccine each year.
The FDA officials also sought to reassure Americans concerned they might lose access to boosters under the new framework.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) definition of risk factors is "vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression," they wrote, noting that between 100 million and 200 million Americans would likely still qualify.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

At No Cost to Federal Government a Lifeline for America's Communities
At No Cost to Federal Government a Lifeline for America's Communities

Int'l Business Times

time3 days ago

  • Int'l Business Times

At No Cost to Federal Government a Lifeline for America's Communities

As the U.S. healthcare system wrestles with rising costs and deepening disparities, one federal program quietly continues to serve as a financial and clinical lifeline for millions of Americans: the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Since its inception in 1992, 340B has enabled safety net hospitals, community health centers, and other providers to purchase outpatient medications at reduced prices. These savings aren't about boosting bottom lines—they're about keeping doors open, expanding access to care, and delivering essential services for all. At its heart, 340B is about getting medicine—and the healthcare services needed to ensure their safe and effective use—to people who otherwise might go without it. It empowers hospitals that serve high numbers of uninsured and modest-income patients, as well as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Ryan White clinics that reach the working poor. The savings realized under 340B are not pocketed. These providers invest funds directly into programs that offer mental health services, treat substance use disorders, fund mobile clinics, and support chronic disease management. In many cases, access to the 340B program is the determining factor in whether a provider can afford to keep its pharmacy open to serve those who would otherwise go without treatment. The 340B program is a small program with big benefits. The discounts provided account for only 3% of drug companies' global revenues . At the same time, drug price increases continue to rise faster than inflation. In the United States, where drug companies already benefit from federally supported insurance programs and drug prices that are over three times higher than the rest of OECD countries, the 340B program is a reasonable accommodation to meet their obligations to be good corporate citizens. While the impact of the 340B program on drug companies is minimal, the impact on health is significant. Take community health centers, for example. These organizations are often the only providers in rural towns or urban neighborhoods. With the help of 340B, they can offer sliding scale fees, reach out to patients who are unhoused or living in poverty, and provide preventive care and health screenings that are crucial in addressing rising healthcare costs. For diseases like diabetes, 340B drug pricing ensures access to both medications as well as the patient education and healthcare provider services needed to effectively manage a complex chronic condition. In short, they make health more than a buzzword—they make it real. Hospitals also depend on 340B to sustain emergency rooms, neonatal intensive care units, and oncology programs. Small rural hospitals in particular often rely on these savings to remain operational. When one of these facilities shuts down, the consequences are immediate and severe: longer travel times for urgent care, delayed treatments, and a deeper strain on already stressed healthcare systems. Despite its impact, 340B has come under fire from some in the pharmaceutical industry and others who argue the program is being misused or lacks sufficient oversight. While oversight improvements are a worthy discussion, such criticisms ignore the real-world pressures providers face: skyrocketing drug prices, declining reimbursements, and the increasing demand for services as the population ages and grows more medically complex. Along with reasonable reforms that support program integrity, it's time to make common sense changes to reduce the regulatory burden on providers and let them focus on their main job—delivering high-quality health care to all. In the current budgetary environment, maintaining the 340B program is more important than ever. The program doesn't add to the federal budget. Instead, it gives healthcare providers the means to stretch existing resources further—just as Congress intended. Reducing or eliminating the 340B program to increase the profit of global pharmaceutical companies would shift costs to patients while simultaneously putting additional strains on state and federal budgets at the worst possible time. Undermining the 340B program would not just threaten individual institutions—it would unravel an already fragile health infrastructure. The people most affected would be those with the fewest options: modest and low-wage workers, rural residents, and those without insurance. The 340B program is a critical bridge between affordability and access, between policy and people. While reforms of the program may be useful, it is imperative they be guided with an overarching goal of improving how the program works for patients, not of providing a windfall for pharmaceutical manufacturers, who have experienced record profits since the program's inception. Weakening the 340B program would be short-sighted and harmful. Strengthening it is a fiscal imperative—for hospitals, clinics, and all communities. Author: Jane L. Delgado, Ph.D., M.S., is a highly esteemed and in-demand analyst and thought leader. She is the President and CEO of an NGO, Healthy Americas Foundation (HAF). She sits on the boards of the U.S. Soccer Foundation (Chair, Audit), McLean Hospital (Belmont, MA), the National Biodefense Science Advisory Board, the Lovelace Biomedical Research Institute (Investment Committee), and Argonne National Labs (Chair, Compensation).

GOP Senator Mocks Constituents' Concerns of Medicaid Cuts Killing People in Sarcastic Apology Video
GOP Senator Mocks Constituents' Concerns of Medicaid Cuts Killing People in Sarcastic Apology Video

Int'l Business Times

time3 days ago

  • Int'l Business Times

GOP Senator Mocks Constituents' Concerns of Medicaid Cuts Killing People in Sarcastic Apology Video

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst is facing backlash after posting a sarcastic video from a cemetery in response to criticism over her dismissive remarks about Medicaid cuts potentially leading to deaths. On May 30, during a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, Ernst was confronted by a concerned constituent about proposed Medicaid cuts in Republicans' spending bill. The legislation is projected to slash federal Medicaid funding by $723 billion over ten years and leave 7.6 million more Americans uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. When the audience member shouted "people will die," Ernst responded with, "We all are going to die," leading to immediate outrage from critics and Democrats. In the days following the town hall, Ernst doubled down with a sarcastic Instagram story filmed in a cemetery. Last month France confirmed it would withdraw its contingent of hundreds of troops stationed in Burkina Faso AFP "I made an incorrect assumption that everyone understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth," she said. She then mocked critics by referencing the tooth fairy and invoking Christianity, adding, "For those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ." Ernst later blamed the backlash on "hysteria... from the left," while defending the tax bill as focused on protecting only eligible Medicaid recipients, the Des Moines Register reported. The video sparked additional criticism from health care advocates and Democrats who said Ernst's tone trivialized the real human cost of Medicaid cuts. Protesters have organized outside her Iowa offices, while several advocacy organizations have launched digital campaigns urging constituents to pressure lawmakers to oppose the bill. The Senate is expected to vote on the spending bill later this summer. Originally published on Latin Times

Middle East: UN labels Gaza 'the hungriest place on Earth' – DW – 05/30/2025
Middle East: UN labels Gaza 'the hungriest place on Earth' – DW – 05/30/2025

DW

time30-05-2025

  • DW

Middle East: UN labels Gaza 'the hungriest place on Earth' – DW – 05/30/2025

Skip next section 100% of Gazans at risk of famine 05/30/2025 May 30, 2025 100% of Gazans at risk of famine The UN has issued more dire warnings about the desperate situation unfolding in Gaza as attempts to get aid to Palestinians continue. "Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth," said Jens Laerke, spokesman for the UN humanitarian agency OCHA, as quoted by the AFP news agency. "It's the only defined area — a country or defined territory within a country — where you have the entire population at risk of famine. 100% of the population at risk of famine," Laerke said, rejecting claims by Israeli authorities that it wasn't the case. While the aid blockade has been partially eased in recent days, of the 900 truckloads of authorized aid, only 600 had been offloaded on the Gazan side. "This limited number of truckloads that are coming in... it's a trickle," Laerke said, describing it as "drip-feeding food." The spokesman said the mission to deliver aid was "in an operational straitjacket that makes it one of the most obstructed aid operations not only in the world today, but in recent history." Tommaso Della Longa, a spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, also said that half of the organization's medical facilities in the area were out of action due to a lack of fuel or medical equipment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store