logo
Is measles coming to Maine? Will my vaccination protect me?

Is measles coming to Maine? Will my vaccination protect me?

Yahoo15-03-2025

Mar. 15—Measles outbreaks are continuing to expand in Texas and New Mexico, with 284 reported cases and two deaths of unvaccinated people so far.
Nationwide, there have been 308 measles cases so far this year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Friday. That surpasses the total number cases reported for all of 2024 — 285.
No cases have been reported in Maine yet this year, and the state's high vaccination rate reduces the risk of an outbreak here.
But Maine is not totally immune from the disease. The last measles case in Maine was in 2023, when one child contracted the disease.
The Press Herald caught up with Dr. Puthiery Va, director of the Maine CDC, to help answer Mainers' questions about vaccinations, the risks of the disease, and reports of alternative prevention methods and treatments.
Here is what you need to know.
Where is measles showing up in the U.S.?
Outside the big outbreaks in Texas and New Mexico, measles cases have been reported in Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
What is the measles and why is it dangerous?
Measles is a viral disease that causes the spotted rash often seen in news photos, as well as fever, cough, runny nose and conjunctivitis (eye infection), among other symptoms.
It can cause severe complications.
"The measles is harmful. It can cause brain swelling, pneumonia, loss of hearing and loss of life," Va said.
About one to three in every 1,000 cases can result in death. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in the 1960s, the infection caused 400-500 deaths per year.
How does it spread and how is it stopped?
"The measles is incredibly contagious, and one reason it's so contagious and so good at spreading is it's airborne," Va said.
"The individual is contagious for longer than they are feeling ill, four days before they have symptoms to up to 21 days after they were exposed to the virus. So people are moving around, going about their daily lives and still very much contagious."
Measles is considered so contagious that if one person has it, nine of 10 people in the same room are likely to contract the measles, if they are unvaccinated.
"Vaccination is the only, most effective way to prevent measles," Va said.
When should my child get the measles vaccine?
The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — MMR — is recommended for children ages 12-15 months, followed by a booster for children ages 4-6 years.
If a family is traveling to an area experiencing a measles outbreak, that may slightly alter the recommendation, Va said. For instance, if you have a 10-month-old child and are traveling to West Texas, where measles is spreading, Va said to go ahead and get the shot early.
Maine passed a law in 2019 that went into effect in 2021 that requires all school-age children to be vaccinated for measles and a number of other infectious diseases, such as pertussis and chickenpox. Previously, parents could sign a form forgoing vaccination for their children on religious or philosophic grounds. Maine eliminated those opt-outs, and now the only way a family can forgo school-required vaccines for their child is through a medical exemption.
Does that mean Maine is better protected?
Since the law went into effect, Maine's school vaccination rates have soared, and kindergarten opt-out rates plummeted from about 4% to 6% in the years leading up to the law going into effect, to 0.9% in the 2023-24 school year.
Maine's schools also achieved herd immunity for the first time since 2011, with 97% of all students getting their shots for all vaccinations, in the 2023-24 school year. Herd immunity is when immunization levels are so high that it doesn't allow even highly contagious diseases like measles to spread.
"Our high vaccination rates are why we haven't seen a measles outbreak here in Maine," Va said. "Because we have such a good vaccination rate, the measles doesn't have an opportunity to spread."
Do older adults need to get a measles vaccine booster?
Those born between 1957 and 1967 should check with their primary care physician to see if they need a booster shot, because during that time the vaccine given for measles was weaker than later variations of the vaccine.
Va said that typically someone born in that time period will take a blood test to see if they have immunity to measles, and if immunity has waned, their doctor may recommend a booster shot.
This is a standing recommendation, but has been the focus of more public attention recently because of the measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico.
Can Vitamin A prevent or treat measles?
Misinformation about measles prevention continues to spread, including about the vaccine and vitamin A.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health and human services secretary and an anti-vaccine activist, recently told Fox News that the measles vaccine can cause the measles. This is false.
Kennedy has also floated the idea that vitamin A can treat measles, but according to Johns Hopkins University, "Vitamin A is not a cure or prevention for measles."
Vitamin A can be useful for measles in "populations with a high prevalence of undernutrition and vitamin A deficiency, which is generally not the case in the U.S."
In areas with vitamin A deficiency, such as some developing countries, vitamin A supplements could reduce measles mortality by about half, according to Johns Hopkins.
Copy the Story Link

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tricking Veterans: Using Suicide and Mental Health Struggles as a Guise for Privatizing the VA
Tricking Veterans: Using Suicide and Mental Health Struggles as a Guise for Privatizing the VA

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Tricking Veterans: Using Suicide and Mental Health Struggles as a Guise for Privatizing the VA

The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@ for consideration. While attention remains focused on the looming crisis of Department of Veterans Affairs employees facing termination, an even more ominous threat to veterans' health care advances unnoticed through the halls of Congress. Three pieces of legislation are gaining momentum, each crafted to systematically dismantle VA-delivered care under the guise of sympathy for veteran suicide and mental health struggles. These bills could deliver the decisive blow in a long-standing campaign by proponents determined to privatize VA health care, collapsing the system by pulling funding it needs to care for veterans. Despite promises of greater "freedom," "autonomy" and "choice," unfettered private-sector funding threatens to narrow -- rather than expand -- veterans' actual options. As resources steadily drain from VA facilities and units disappear, millions of veterans who rely on VA services -- particularly those with service-connected conditions -- will lose access to the system they prefer. Instead, those funds will go into the coffers of private health care companies. Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation to grant veterans unrestricted access to privatized care, known as the Veterans Community Care Program, or VCCP. A particular emphasis has been on mental health care, where legislation has aimed to eliminate VA referral requirements entirely. None of these potential laws has made it very far, until now. Three bills are proceeding through Congress. One, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, secured House approval last month. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (SVAC) is actively weighing whether to follow suit. Should it do so, or if the other bills gain traction, the foundational structure of the VA system could crack. Even without legislation, we're seeing a shift underway. In the VA secretary's new budget, VA medical care funding would be cut by 17% while VCCP private-sector resources would receive a 50% boost. Veterans genuinely appreciate the convenience of community care referrals close to home, but they remain largely unaware of the devastating long-term consequences these legislative changes could bring. If veterans truly grasped the scope of what's being planned, they'd likely reject them. When the Veterans of Foreign Wars surveyed 10,000 members, an overwhelming 92% wanted the VA preserved as the primary health care source -- not dismantled in favor of insurance cards for private providers. A Common Defense poll last week found that two-thirds of veterans oppose downsizing the VA. The Disabled American Veterans is so alarmed by the prospect of unchecked outsourcing that it published a 2023 report with the stark warning title, "A Broken Promise: What if the Veterans Health Administration Goes Away?" That question cuts right to the core. If the VA does not remain the sole authorizer of care, and receive sufficient funding to meet patient demand, the system -- which research consistently shows equals or exceeds community care in critical quality and outcome measures -- faces dismantlement. The VA will likely end up instead as a sprawling assortment of outpatient clinics. If that sounds familiar, it's the plan envisioned in the Project 2025 blueprint. The ripple effects will also reach into America's broader health care landscape. The VA serves as the primary training ground for the nation's health care workforce. Furthermore, VA research -- for countless mental and physical conditions that help both veteran and civilian populations -- would suffer crushing consequences. The VA's role as the nation's health care safety net during public health emergencies would also be severely compromised. The drive for privatization -- shifting governmental responsibilities and funding to private-sector entities -- has deep roots in anti-government politics. Over the past decade, libertarian advocates have forged a powerful alliance with health care corporations seeking lucrative access to billions of taxpayer dollars, joined by veterans' organizations positioning themselves as preferable alternatives to VA care. The strategy crystallized at a June 2014 gathering of conservative activists, where Concerned Veterans for America, backed by the Koch brothers, unveiled a plan to discredit and steadily privatize VA health care. This vision gained legislative traction two months later when Congress enacted the VA Choice Act, expanding private-sector use. The VA Mission Act of 2018 accelerated this shift through the Veterans Community Care Program, which has experienced explosive growth of 15% to 20% annually and already accounts for 40% of all VA-funded patient care. Despite these legislative changes, one essential safeguard against large-scale VA privatization has remained intact: Veterans must still receive authorization from VA staff to obtain private care. This gatekeeping function serves an indispensable purpose, ensuring the VA can allocate resources efficiently and continue investing in high-quality, innovative care within its own system. Community options are unquestionably an essential backup for veterans living far away or facing lengthy waits for VA appointments. However, excessive private-sector use risks destabilizing the VA system and jeopardizing its viability. A "Red Team" of independent health care experts concluded last year that the metastasizing growth of private-sector referrals placed the system in an "existential crisis." These allocations are draining resources from VA facilities, threatening to eliminate services and close facilities. This precarious situation is already evident under current eligibility requirements. Further statutory expansions of veterans' eligibility -- especially unfettered access -- for private-sector care would be financially unsustainable for VA direct care. Champions of privatization have introduced numerous bills designed to eliminate the requirement for VA authorization before veterans can access private care. These advocates have strategically seized upon veteran suicide and mental health crises as leverage points, exploiting the genuine sympathy these urgent issues generate to advance their broader privatization agenda that bears little connection to improving veterans' mental health. The underlying statistics certainly warrant concern: Veteran demand for mental health services has continued to climb relentlessly for years, outstripping the VA's funded capacity, while the veteran suicide rate remains persistently entrenched at levels approximately 50% higher than that of the general population. However, the proposed solutions reveal an inconvenient contradiction. Expanding outsourced mental health care would move veterans away from higher-quality, more timely treatment toward a fragmented private system ill-equipped to address their needs. The VA is widely considered the gold standard for treating psychological wounds. Compared to VA mental health clinicians, VCCP providers are far less likely to utilize evidence-based psychotherapies, receive mandatory training in military sexual trauma and suicide prevention, or seamlessly integrate mental and physical health care. Even the VA Mission Act recognized this disparity, citing VA mental health providers as possessing unique "special expertise" that distinguishes them from their civilian counterparts. Similarly, the VA's suicide prevention initiatives exceed private-sector efforts. Each of the VA's 170 medical centers employs dedicated suicide prevention coordinators who collaborate with VA clinicians to oversee suicide risk screening, expedited mental health appointments, follow-up after missed appointments, safety planning, and medical record flagging. Annual suicide prevention and lethal means safety training is mandatory for all VA providers. Veterans receiving all their care through community programs experience higher suicide rates than those treated exclusively within VA facilities. The privatization push also wasn't driven by the private sector's capacity to deliver care more quickly. Most American counties lack a single psychiatrist, while 45% of rural counties have no psychologist. Veterans wait longer for mental health appointments through the VCCP than within the VA system itself. The VA system still has plenty more work to get done. Veterans currently wait an average of 17 days for a mental health appointment, while those requiring more intensive care face a 16-day delay from initial screening to admission into residential rehabilitation programs. In 2017, Jeff Miller, the recently departed chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs (HVAC), began working as a lobbyist for billionaire Steven Cohen, founder of the Cohen Veterans Network mental health clinic chain. Cohen objected to the VA's policy requiring prior authorization before reimbursing for private care. He sought to eliminate this regulation, allowing veterans to walk into his clinics, receive services, and send the VA the bill afterward -- no approval needed. Miller and Cohen Network representatives met with HVAC committee members and drafted legislation abolishing the VA's authorization requirement for mental health care. These efforts gained movement when then-Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., agreed to introduce their bill. The legislation faced immediate and unified opposition from major veterans service organizations. These groups recognized that the bill would undermine not only the VA's mental health services but also threaten the integrated health care system's overall structure. Faced with this resistance, the bill was quickly withdrawn. Talking to ProPublica, a former VA official presciently warned at the time, "If you start trying to carve into government money in veterans' care to feed things like the Cohen Veterans Network, that's actually privatization. It's going to be death by a thousand cuts." In 2019, veteran suicide statistics seemed to portray a devastating picture. Despite a decade of well-conceived efforts, the numbers simply weren't budging. Twenty veterans took their lives each day, 14 of whom were not using the VA for services. The unyielding problem begged for fresh approaches. This recognition sparked genuine bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, John Boozman, R-Ariz., and Mark Warner, D-Va., joined forces, while Representatives Jack Bergman, R-Mich., and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., did the same in the House. Together, they crafted the IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Wellbeing for Veterans Act -- a three-year pilot program to provide federal grants to community organizations already working on the ground to identify at-risk veterans disconnected from VA health care and furnish preventive services before suicidal crises emerged. What made the Improve Act truly unprecedented wasn't just its community-leveraging framework, but its insistence that renewed funding be based on demonstrated improvements. The bill's architects mandated capturing comprehensive outcome data at multiple points to distinguish which community programs enhanced veterans' mental resiliency over a long-term period and thereby reduced suicide risk. Meanwhile, Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., SVAC ranking member, was constructing his own comprehensive veterans' mental health bill. During negotiations, he agreed to include Improve Act language in the package, later renamed the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program after a 25-year-old Army sniper instructor who'd recently died by suicide. Tester's bill sailed through Congress, and the pilot Fox Grant Program began funding grantees in late 2022. The 18-month Fox Program review revealed a bleak picture of widespread ineffectiveness. Organizations were supposed to track participants' suicidal ideation, financial stability, mental health status and social supports before and after providing services, but most didn't do so. Out of all participating entities, only 295 people completed services and filled out at least one of the five required questionnaires. That's roughly, on average, four people per grantee -- a shockingly minuscule number. Even worse, the report failed to break down results by individual organization, making it impossible to determine whether they were helping improve veterans' well-being. As the three-year pilot approached the time for reauthorization in 2024, House and Senate committees held hearings to chart the program's future. However, applying the original renewal criteria for grantees would create a problem: If grant money was truly reserved for community programs that demonstrated improvement, many grantees would surely lose funding. The solution emerged as a sham workaround -- ensure private-sector money continued flowing by ignoring the requirement that grantees measure outcomes. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, adopted this hands-off approach with her No Wrong Door for Veterans Act. It mandates a one-time initial screening while making no mention of pre and post assessment instruments designed to evaluate program outcomes and inform renewal decisions -- an omission that implicitly renders such evaluations voluntary. The potential abandonment of required pre and post comparative data troubled several lawmakers. House Democrats offered amendments to ensure continuation of outcomes tracking, but these were swiftly rejected. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act contained two additional provisions that will accelerate privatization. One compressed VA access standards, the time limit the VA has to schedule, from 20 days to an unrealistic 3-day window for mental health referrals -- virtually guaranteeing automatic referrals to non-VA providers. Then, once Fox Grant recipients secure this expedited community care pathway, political pressure would inevitably mount to extend identical leeway to all enrolled veterans, draining more resources from VA facilities. Another provision posed an equally grave threat: The bill expands eligible grant recipients to include "mental health care entities" and permits them to offer non-emergency direct mental health treatment. This expanded scope would duplicate the mental health care provided at nearby VA and VCCP facilities, undermining the very agency it is intended to complement. A pair of other veterans' mental health bills have entered the legislative pipeline, each creating broad avenues for veterans to access private-sector services independently of VA involvement. One is the Veterans Health Act, introduced in 2023 by Jerry Moran, R-Kan., then the SVAC ranking member. The legislation includes a pilot program designed to expand access for veterans experiencing mental health and substance use disorders. Under this framework, veterans could schedule appointments directly with community providers, circumventing VA referral systems. Despite its pilot designation, the bill contains a mandate to expand this model across all health conditions throughout the entire VA system after three years. Moran reintroduced the pilot in March 2025 as part of the Veterans Access Act, which is slated for consideration this summer. The second bill -- the Recover Act -- introduced last fall by HVAC Chairman Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., would allocate grants to facilities for mental health services. This Cohen Veterans Network-backed legislation would create a parallel care system beyond services already available through the VA and the VCCP. This proposed arrangement raises troubling concerns about accountability. The VA would lose ability to oversee treatment furnished through these grants, while recipient facilities would face no requirement to share health records with VA providers -- a fundamental breakdown in care coordination that could leave veterans' treatment fragmented and potentially compromised. We've reached a critical juncture. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act cleared the House in late May, leaving the Senate to make a pivotal choice: Advance this legislation or pursue legislation that retains accountability. Both the Veterans Health Act and the Recover Act are teed up for further attention. By the time America celebrates Veterans Day this fall, Washington may have delivered a mortal blow to the system uniquely designed to serve those who answered their country's call. -- Russell Lemle is a senior policy analyst with the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.

Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center celebrates its 5,000th TAVR procedure
Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center celebrates its 5,000th TAVR procedure

Business Journals

time7 hours ago

  • Business Journals

Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center celebrates its 5,000th TAVR procedure

Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center and its team of world-renowned heart experts recently reached a historic milestone at the forefront of cardiac care. In May, Aurora St. Luke's completed its 5,000th transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), ranking fourth among all TAVR implanting sites in the United States. TAVR is a less invasive life-saving procedure for patients with aortic valve disease. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 5 million Americans are diagnosed with valvular heart disease each year. Left untreated or improperly managed, valve disease makes it more difficult for the heart to pump blood and can eventually lead to heart failure. This condition often develops as a result of calcium buildup as a person ages. Symptoms of valve disease can include chest pain, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath and lightheadedness. Developed as an alternative to open heart surgery, TAVR is done through a small incision in either the groin or chest and guide a catheter through blood vessels until they reach the damaged aortic valve. A new valve is inserted into the diseased valve. Once in place, the replacement valve expands to its full size and takes over the diseased valve's job of regulating blood flow. Compared to open heart surgery, TAVR carries a lower risk of complications and offers a much faster recovery time. Patients who undergo TAVR are released from the hospital within one to three days and can typically resume normal activity two weeks after the procedure. 'I'm proud of our innovative, highly specialized cardiologists who deliver excellent care, time and time again,' said Jennifer Schomburg, president of Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center and Southeast Wisconsin Area. 'From the first TAVR procedure to the 5,000th, our team has leveraged their knowledge and expertise to help patients regain their heart's function, their energy and the lives they love.' 'We've continued to grow and develop the TAVR program for more than 15 years,' said Dr. Tanvir Bajwa, director of interventional cardiology and co-director of the valve clinic at Aurora St. Luke's. 'While we're honored to mark this tremendous milestone, we're eager to find more ways to improve lives and restore hearts of those in our community.' Aurora St. Luke's was heavily involved in leading the clinical trials that led to TAVR's FDA approval. Today, the minimally invasive procedure is performed throughout the world, with Aurora St. Luke's operating the largest and most experienced TAVR program in Wisconsin. The heart of Aurora Health Care's cardiovascular program, Aurora St. Luke's is consistently ranked among the best in the country by U.S. News & World Report. Home to groundbreaking clinical trials, cardiovascular research and innovative, effective, state-of-the-art care, it is the only hospital in the state equipped with a 24/7 on-site heart-care team committed to providing the highest standards of quality and care.

RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee
RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr fires entire US vaccine committee

Robert F Kennedy Jr has dismissed all current members of a key federal vaccine advisory panel, accusing them of conflicts of interest. The removal of all 17 experts of the advisory committee on immunisation practices was revealed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and an official press release. Mr Kennedy, the US health secretary, who has spent two decades amplifying vaccine misinformation, cast the move as essential to restoring public trust, claiming the committee had been compromised by financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. 'Today we are prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro or anti-vaccine agenda,' he said in a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services. 'The public must know that unbiased science – evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest – guides the recommendations of our health agencies.' In his op-ed, Mr Kennedy claimed the panel was 'plagued with persistent conflicts of interest' and had become 'little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine'. He added that new members were being considered to replace those ousted, all of whom were appointed under Joe Biden, the former president. Committee members are chosen for their recognised expertise and are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. 'RFK Jr and the Trump administration are taking a wrecking ball to the programs that keep Americans safe and healthy,' Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said in response. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor who expressed concern about Mr Kennedy's track record during his Senate nomination but ultimately voted in his favour, wrote on X: 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' The decision drew sharp criticism from Paul Offit, a paediatrician and leading expert on virology and immunology, who served on the panel from 1998 to 2003. 'He believes that anybody who speaks well of vaccines, or recommends vaccines, must be deeply in the pocket of industry,' Mr Offit told AFP. 'He's fixing a problem that doesn't exist.' 'We are witnessing an escalating effort by the administration to silence independent medical expertise and stoke distrust in life-saving vaccines,' added Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Paediatrics, in a statement. Once a celebrated environmental lawyer, Kennedy pivoted to public health from the mid-2000s, chairing a non-profit that discouraged routine childhood immunisations and amplified false claims, including the long-debunked theory that the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Since taking office, he has curtailed access to Covid shots and continued to raise fears around the MMR vaccine even as the US faces its worst measles outbreak in years, with three reported deaths and more than 1,100 confirmed cases. Experts have warned that the true case count is likely to be far higher. 'How can this country have confidence that the people RFK Jr. wants on the advisory committee on immunisation practices are people we can trust?' asked Mr Offit. He recalled that during Donald Trump's first term as US president, several states formed independent vaccine advisory panels after the administration pressured federal health agencies to prematurely approve Covid vaccines ahead of the 2020 election. He warned that kind of fragmentation could happen again. The advisory committee on immunisation practices is scheduled to hold its next meeting at the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta from June 25 to June 27. Vaccines for anthrax, Covid, human papillomavirus, influenza, Lyme disease, respiratory syncytial virus, and more are on the agenda. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

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