
How changes to Covid-19 vaccine policy in the US may affect you
The US Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has recently made significant changes to how Covid-19 vaccines are approved and the groups they are recommended for.
For the past few years, the federal government has broadly approved and recommended an updated Covid-19 shot for everyone ages 6 months and up each fall.
But last week, leaders from the US Food and Drug Administration outlined a new framework for the approval process for Covid-19 vaccines that could limit shots to older Americans and people at higher risk of serious Covid-19 infection. On Tuesday, Kennedy announced that the vaccine will no longer be among the recommended vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization schedule.
These changes, made in unconventional ways, will probably affect access to and availability of Covid-19 vaccine shots for millions.
Under the framework outlined by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the new director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, updated Covid-19 vaccines will probably be approved for everyone 65 and older and for people 6 months and older who have at least one underlying condition that puts them at 'high risk for severe Covid-19 outcomes.'
The CDC lists dozens of conditions that may contribute to higher Covid-19 risk, including asthma, cancer, diabetes, obesity and a history of smoking. These underlying conditions will make between 100 million and 200 million people in the US eligible for a Covid-19 vaccine under the new framework, the FDA leaders estimate.
Pregnancy is included on the list of factors that the CDC says have shown 'a conclusive increase in risk' for at least one severe Covid-19 outcome. Kennedy did not offer a specific reason behind the decision to stop recommending the Covid-19 for pregnant people in Tuesday's announcement, but the move appears to directly contradict the new framework outlined a week earlier.
For kids and adults younger than 65 who do not have an underlying condition, the FDA says it will require in-depth clinical trials before licensing new vaccines.
An independent group of advisers to the CDC – the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP – is expected meet at the end of June to vote on Covid-19 vaccine recommendations, and they had already been weighing options for more targeted risk-based recommendations than the general guidelines issued in previous years.
Experts say next month's meeting could be a pivotal moment in the future of Covid-19 vaccine access, with much uncertainty around what will happen if the advisers recommend a different path forward than officials have outlined.
Maybe, but it may be more difficult – and expensive.
'Theoretically, one could find someone who would be willing to provide them the vaccine – and they may have to pay out of pocket to get it – but there's a lot of things that have to align for that to happen,' said Dr. Michelle Fiscus, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of the Association of Immunization Managers.
Health care providers, including pediatricians, may be able to provide the Covid-19 vaccine 'off-label' – but they'd need to have the vaccine in stock, which has become increasingly uncommon.
The vast majority of Covid-19 vaccinations happen at pharmacies. Pharmacists generally don't have the tools to verify medical history and whether an individual has a condition that makes them high-risk, so many of them could take patients at their word. But the recent announcements from the federal government may have a chilling effect on what providers are willing to do, experts say.
It's likely that people who are covered by public insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid and who meet the new FDA eligibility requirements will continue to have Covid-19 vaccines covered, experts say.
There's more uncertainty around how private insurance companies will choose to adjust coverage. Some of the conditions that the CDC lists as high-risk for Covid-19 – such as 'physical inactivity' – are loosely defined and may be left up to individual plans to interpret.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover vaccines for adults if they've been recommended by ACIP. The committee also votes on whether vaccines should be added to the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines to children who would not otherwise be able to afford them.
However, there's a gray area around what will happen if ACIP recommendations differ from CDC recommendations, experts say.
In a video posted on social media on Tuesday, Kennedy said that changes to the recommendations for children and pregnant people took effect that same day. As of Thursday morning, however, the CDC's recommended immunization schedule posted online had not changed.
Last week's editorial from Makary and Prasad said that the new framework for vaccine approval would be adopted 'moving forward.' The FDA officials say the new policy balances the need to swiftly approve vaccines – to have them ready by the fall respiratory virus season for the most vulnerable adults and children – against the need for more evidence before offering them to others.
Under this newly proposed framework, the FDA says, it will require additional evidence from vaccine manufacturers before approving updated Covid-19 shots for healthy kids and adults. The officials said those studies should last a minimum of six months, which would preclude any findings from influencing approvals in time for this fall.
The CDC's independent vaccine advisers meet at the end of June and are expected to vote on this fall's Covid-19 vaccine recommendations. Their decisions have guided vaccine policy in the US for decades, but it's unclear how much influence it will have over the newly announced changes. HHS still hasn't signed off on two of the three recommendations that were made at the group's last meeting, in April.
The Covid-19 vaccines that are currently available in the US have been approved by the FDA after rigorous analysis and are considered safe.
In their editorial outlining the new framework for Covid-19 vaccine approval, the FDA's Makary and Prasad said that 'the benefit of repeat dosing … is uncertain,' but they did not present evidence that Covid-19 vaccines themselves are unsafe.
The agency says it will approve vaccines for healthy kids and adults only after studies that prove that the shots can prevent symptomatic Covid-19 better than a placebo. However, the new plan doesn't take into account other effects of Covid-19 infections, such as long Covid.
These changes to Covid-19 vaccine policy limit opportunities to protect people who are at high risk, including young children and pregnant people, experts say
'We have vaccines that we know were critical in saving lives during the pandemic and we continue to see the morbidity and mortality from Covid-19,' Fiscus said. 'It's very concerning that people who would choose to protect themselves or their children with a vaccine may have that choice taken away.'
CNN's Brenda Goodman contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
8 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Recall alert: Orajel teething swabs pulled from shelves over potential fungal contamination
Orajel teething swabs recalled over fungal concerns—here's what parents should know If you have a stash of teething remedies tucked into your medicine cabinet, it may be time to take a second look. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. has issued a voluntary nationwide recall of several swab-based products—including certain Orajel Baby Teething Swabs—due to possible fungal contamination in the cotton tip component. The recall also includes two types of Zicam nasal swabs. According to the FDA's official alert, these fungi could pose a health risk, especially for children or individuals with weakened immune systems. This isn't a reason to panic—but it is a moment to pause and take action. Related: 1.7 million eggs recalled across 9 states after salmonella outbreak All lot numbers of the following products are affected: Orajel Baby Teething Swabs UPC: 310310400002Use: To soothe teething discomfort in babies and toddlers Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs UPC: 732216301205Use: Homeopathic swab meant to shorten cold duration Zicam Nasal AllClear Swabs UPC: 732216301656Use: Nasal cleansing swabs (discontinued in 2024) Important: This recall does not include other Orajel or Zicam products, such as gels or RapidMelts. Check your medicine cabinet for any of the products above. Look for the UPC code on the packaging. Stop using recalled products immediately. Visit or call 1‑800‑981‑4710 (Mon–Fri, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. ET) for a full refund. Dispose of the product safely—do not donate or give it away. Related: Check your fridge: Cucumber recall hits 15 states after salmonella outbreak The FDA says the risk is highest for individuals with inflamed nasal tissue or weakened immune systems, as the fungal contamination could lead to serious infections, especially in the bloodstream. But if your baby seems healthy and has shown no unusual symptoms, there's no immediate cause for alarm. Still, if you've recently used a recalled swab call your pediatrician and mention the recall for guidance. Recalls like these are unsettling—but they're also a sign that safety systems are working. If you've used these products, take a breath. Take the next step. You're doing the right thing by staying informed and responsive.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.