State health officials urge kids, pregnant women to get COVID-19 vaccine despite federal pullback
Wisconsin's state health department still recommends the COVID-19 vaccine, despite discord at the federal level after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said it would no longer be recommended for children and pregnant women.
"The recent changes in (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidance were not made based on new data, evidence or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes," a June 4 news release from the state health department said.
Kennedy, a vocal vaccine critic, announced May 27 in a video on X that the CDC would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. He did not cite new evidence in doing so. CDC guidance published days later still recommended COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children if their parents and doctors agree, but said the vaccines are no longer recommended during pregnancy.
Children can contract COVID-19 like any other person, but are less likely to become seriously ill from the virus than adults, though they can still spread it to more vulnerable individuals. Pregnant women, however, are more likely to become seriously ill, which can lead to preterm birth and other problems. Experts say vaccination during pregnancy can safeguard infants after birth because babies depend on maternal antibodies for early immunity.
Federal vaccine recommendations matter not just because the public pays attention to them, but because it can affect which vaccines insurers decide to cover, said Patrick Remington, emeritus professor at UW-Madison's School of Medicine and Public Health.
Given the recommendation from the state, Remington said he's hopeful companies that insure people in Wisconsin will continue covering the COVID-19 vaccine despite the change in federal recommendations. Wisconsin's Medicaid program will continue to cover the vaccine, according to the news release.
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which sets recommendations for vaccines in the U.S., is not scheduled to meet until later in June. The group is discussing whether to narrow its recommendation about who should receive COVID-19 booster shots.
There's room for healthy debate about the benefits and risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for certain groups of people, Remington said, because it's part of how science works. But he said that debate should take place among the members of the advisory committee, who are independent medical experts. For Kennedy to bring his personal beliefs about vaccines into his recommendations is unfortunate, Remington said.
"When you see disagreement between the federal government's recommendations and what experts, like at (the state health department) say, sometimes the public throws up their hands and says, 'If they can't agree, I don't believe anything,'" he said.
If someone is confused about the differing recommendations and wants advice on their particular situation, Remington suggested talking with a doctor, who'll be able to consider their personal circumstances when it comes to future doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Less than one in five Wisconsinites have received at least one dose of the most current COVID-19 vaccine, according to data from the state health department. Nearly half of those who have are adults 65 and older.
More: COVID, conspiracy theories and a billboard campaign: Grace Schara's hospital death finally sees trial
More: How were Milwaukee-area health departments using COVID-era grants cut by the Trump administration?
Madeline Heim covers health and the environment for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at 920-996-7266 or mheim@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin health department still recommends COVID-19 vaccine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
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. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You're Confused by the New COVID Vaccine Guidelines for Kids & Pregnant People, Read This
Confused about the new COVID-19 vaccine guidelines for children and pregnant people? Trust us, you're not alone. It all started on May 27, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the U.S. would no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for healthy children over 6 months or healthy pregnant people — a move that shocked most healthcare providers. Not only did the announcement upend the typical vaccine recommendation process, it also targeted a vaccine with good safety and efficacy data. Then, just a few days later, the CDC walked back part of RFK's statement regarding children's vaccines. The agency announced COVID shots would stay on the schedule for healthy children 6 months to 17 years old, as long as the children and their caregivers consulted with a doctor or provider — a caveat even doctors found confusing. 'My neck still hurts from the whiplash,' Dr. Molly O'Shea, MD, FAAP, an official spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and a faculty at the Children's Hospital of Michigan General Pediatrics Continuity Clinic, said on a briefing hosted by the non-profit HealthyWomen this week. More from SheKnows Elon Musk's Daughter Vivian Reveals One of Their Last Tense Interactions - Nearly 5 Years Ago RFK is a known vaccine skeptic, but it's highly unusual for the Health Secretary to make such decisions unilaterally, as multiple experts pointed out during the briefing. So ultimately, what does this mean for children and pregnant people when it comes to getting vaccinated for COVID? Are these shots still necessary, and will insurance still foot the bill for them if without this government backing? Here's what we know so far, according to experts in the briefing. The COVID vaccine is still considered very effective for children and pregnant people, with lower risks than the infection itself. Early in the pandemic, pregnant people and children often suffered significant outcomes from COVID, explained Dr. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, FAAFP, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness and physician well-being at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). 'For pregnant people, in particular, the risk of ending up in the ICU, the risk of ending up on a ventilator, and the risk of death were just remarkably high, much more than you would expect,' she explained during the briefing. Once the vaccine became available, 'those rates declined,' Dr. Savoy said. In fact, the serious outcomes that many worried would be side effects from the vaccine — things like miscarriage, preeclampsia, blood clots, or premature delivery — were actually more likely to happen as side effects from COVID itself, not the vaccine. 'If you find yourself vaccinated, the rates of all of those things actually go down to almost none,' Dr. Savoy explained. Plus, there's the fact that vaccinated pregnant people pass their immunity to their fetus. That means that the vaccine protects the pregnant person themselves; their fetus, against stillbirth and premature delivery; and the baby, once they're born, by conferring protection in their first six months, Dr. Savoy explained. That's a good thing, because 'babies are very high risk' when it comes to respiratory infections like COVID, added Dr. Alice Sato, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and a member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Advocacy Task Force at the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. 'Because they have such small airways… just a little bit of inflammation can make a baby get into trouble with their breathing a lot faster,' Dr. Sato explained. '[Babies] had very high hospitalizations, even with the last wave [of COVID-19.]' Children of any age can also experience long COVID — Dr. Sato said the most recent estimate was that 6 million children in the US were suffering from it — leading to symptoms like fatigue and fussiness. COVID can also lead to missing crucial periods of time from school or preschool. Getting vaccinated can help shorten those periods and protect them from those kinds of complications. 'In my vaccinated patients who get COVID, they get mild COVID, if they get it at all — and they aren't as apt to get long COVID,' Dr. O'Shea said. The vaccines are also still considered safe, the doctors agreed. In short, 'the recommendations have changed, but the science hasn't changed,' said Kate Connors, senior director of public affairs at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So what are those new recommendations? The CDC no longer recommends COVID vaccination during pregnancy, which 'seems to be following a unilateral decision from the HHS Secretary,' Connors noted, referencing RFK Jr. 'It was made without any of the input of the experts at the CDC, the members of ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices], certainly without feedback from organizations like ACOG, and so we're very concerned about this.' She noted that ACOG continues to recommend COVID vaccination for pregnant people. For children, the new recommendations are less cut-and-dry. After initially saying the US no longer recommends COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children over 6 months (with exceptions for children with certain medical conditions), the CDC now says it recommends a 'collaborative decision-making [approach] with your pediatrician,' explained Dr. O'Shea. 'Healthy children with no underlying health conditions can, in collaboration with their pediatrician, make a decision about whether or not they want to have their child vaccinated this coming fall against COVID-19.' However, this unusual caveat leaves the door open for insurance companies to rescind coverage of the vaccine, possibly forcing parents to pay out of pocket to vaccinate their children (more on that below). For Dr. Savoy, the 'really deeply troubling' part of these decisions is the lack of evidence to support them. 'I actually don't know what data was used to make the decisions that we're talking about today,' she said. 'The data that I have been able to see most recently continues to mark pregnant people as being incredibly high risk. There would be no situation in the data that I saw that would make me think that it makes sense to remove that recommendation.' The same goes for children, she added. COVID-19 remains a threat, Dr. Savoy emphasized. 'We keep having new variants show up. We keep having people end up in the hospital. We keep running out of beds in the ER. There's things that are still happening, even though they don't show up on the news.' This is one thorny question to come out of the changing guidelines. 'We don't know what's going to happen with insurance coverage, and we're very, very worried about it,' Connors said. That's because there's a direct connection between government vaccine recommendations and insurance coverage of those vaccines, Dr. Savoy explained. Insurance companies typically use government recommendations as a sign that a vaccine is safe and essential; when those recommendations are removed or weakened, the companies may see it as a sign (or an opportunity) to stop covering that vaccine. Connors also pointed out that we're only a few months from flu and RSV season, when vaccines become all the more essential for public health. 'This is a really tough time for these conversations, for these unanswered questions,' she said. All four experts continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, including pregnant people and children. Dr. Sato cited the 'incredible, robust' data that shows that the COVID-19 is safe, effective, and presents fewer risks of complications than an infection itself. 'The science has not changed,' added Connors. 'The COVID vaccine is safe and it is effective… [It's] the best tool that we have to prevent severe outcomes associated with COVID infection.' Dr. Savoy agreed. 'I would still strongly recommend that if you're a pregnant person, that you get vaccinated, not just to protect yourself, but… to protect the fetus and to protect your newborn infant on the other side of that delivery,' she stressed. 'I'm still willing to stand on that hill… And if you were bringing your child in for their visit, I would still say that your child needs to have at least that primary series as a routine recommendation.' Before you go, shop these products to soothe your child's cold symptoms: Best of SheKnows Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox, & More Celebrities Who Have OCD 18 Baking Soda-Free Natural Deodorants That Won't Irritate Your Sensitive Pits 24 Celebrities Living With Autoimmune Disorders
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
FDA food inspector vacancies near 20% after Trump hiring freeze
Nearly 1 in 5 positions across the Food and Drug Administration's human food inspection divisions are now vacant, multiple agency officials tell CBS News, in the wake of departures encouraged by the Trump administration's cost-cutting efforts and a government-wide hiring freeze that had stalled efforts to replenish their ranks. While the FDA has long struggled with hiring and retaining qualified investigators to inspect food producers and distributors, multiple federal health officials — who spoke on the condition of anonymity and were not authorized to speak to the press — say that the staffing gap has worsened due to early retirements and resignations. "The FDA remains fully capable of fulfilling its public health mission to protect the safety of the American people. Under Commissioner Makary's leadership, the agency continues to meet its inspection obligations, ensuring that all facilities are reviewed within mandated timeframes," Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, told CBS News. FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has claimed in interviews that no inspectors were laid off at the agency as a result of the sweeping restructuring ordered by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that began in April, but has not acknowledged the retirements and resignations. And despite Makary's statements, multiple FDA officials said they are worried about worsening attrition in the agency's ranks of investigators. "They're not going to admit our mission is at risk and we're missing timeframes, even though I've heard that's happening," a current FDA official told CBS News in a message. A separate current FDA official and one former official said that close to 20% of investigational positions are vacant across the agency's human foods inspectorate. "Since 2017, our ability to fulfill its public health mission is increasingly constrained by reduced inspectional capacity. We continue to face significant obstacles in recruiting and retaining qualified investigators, particularly in the foods program, where nearly 90 investigative positions remain vacant," the agency said last month in response to a draft of a report by the HHS inspector general. The inspector general had concluded that the FDA would need to increase inspections by more than 3,000 each year, in order to meet its goals. Under requirements laid out by Congress, the FDA is required to inspect food facilities at specific intervals, benchmarks that government watchdogs have long faulted the agency for falling short of. "For FDA to meet the inspection timeframes moving forward, it would need to inspect approximately 7,000 high-risk facilities each year. However, FDA inspected only about 58 percent of that amount," the inspector general's June 2025 report said. Around 40% of investigator positions are vacant for the group of investigators tasked with inspecting "critical foods" like infant formula plants, a current official said. "Critical foods has had difficulty with staffing because every inspection is high profile and the team is traveling more often than not. It isn't sustainable for everyone," a former FDA official said. The job of an FDA investigator has gotten harder in recent months, as the Trump administration imposed additional hurdles to make small purchases necessary for their work, ranging from buying everyday supplies to shipping samples, officials said. "The reality is that the extra steps in budget approval processes have caused inspections to be delayed, and investigators have had to take on administrative tasks that eat into their time being productive. Everything was taking longer," the former FDA official said. Many administrative staff and laboratory scientists supporting the FDA's food inspectors were also eliminated through layoffs, resulting in backlogs of testing and reimbursements. Some have since been reinstated by the agency. One current and one former FDA official said the agency also had many investigators that were in the process of being hired months ago, before attempts to fill the slots were blocked by an order signed by President Trump that now extends through July 15. Multiple officials said Friday morning they were hopeful that the Trump administration might grant an exemption to the hiring freeze after weeks of lobbying by officials within the agency. On Friday afternoon, after HHS responded to a CBS News request for comment about this story, the FDA published its first new hiring announcement for food investigators in months, among a handful of new job postings. "This position is being filled under a stream-lined hiring authority," the job posting reads.
