Latest news with #AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?
As promised, federal health officials have dropped longstanding recommendations that healthy children and healthy pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccines. "The COVID-19 vaccine schedule is very clear. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a post on X on Friday. In formal documents, health officials offer "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine, and ask that parents talk with a healthcare provider before getting the vaccine for their children. The decision was done in a way that is still expected to require insurers to pay for COVID-19 vaccines for children should their parents still want the shots for them. The new vaccine guidelines were posted to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday. It wasn't immediately clear whether insurers will still be required under federal law to pay for vaccinations for pregnant women. The Trump administration's decision came amid criticism from officials at the nation's leading organizations for pediatricians and obstetricians. Some doctors said there is no new evidence to support removing the recommendation that healthy pregnant women and healthy children should get the COVID vaccine. "This situation continues to make things unclear and creates confusion for patients, providers and payers," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday. Earlier in the week, the group's president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said the science hasn't changed, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and protects both the mom-to-be and their infants after birth. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic," Fleischman said in a statement. Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recommendation change as being rolled out in a "conflicting, confusing" manner, with "no explanation of the evidence used to reach their conclusions." "For many families, the COVID vaccine will remain an important way they protect their child and family from this disease and its complications, including long COVID," Kressly said in a statement. Some experts said the Trump administration should have waited to hear recommendations from a committee of doctors and scientists that typically advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, which is set to meet in late June. The California Department of Public Health on Thursday said it supported the longstanding recommendation that "COVID-19 vaccines be available for all persons aged 6 months and older who wish to be vaccinated." The changes come as the CDC has faced an exodus of senior leaders and has lacked an acting director. Typically, as was the case during the first Trump administration and in the Biden administration, it is the CDC director who makes final decisions on vaccine recommendations. The CDC director has traditionally accepted the consensus viewpoint of the CDC's panel of doctors and scientists serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Even with the longstanding recommendations, vaccination rates were relatively low for children and pregnant women. As of late April, 13% of children, and 14.4% of pregnant women, had received the latest updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. About 23% of adults overall received the updated vaccine, as did 27.8% of seniors age 65 and over. The CDC estimates that since October, there have been 31,000 to 50,000 COVID deaths and between 270,000 and 430,000 COVID hospitalizations. Here are some key points about the CDC's decision: Previously, the CDC's guidance was simple: everyone ages 6 months and up should get an updated COVID vaccination. The most recent version was unveiled in September, and is officially known as the 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine. As of Thursday, the CDC, on its pediatric immunization schedule page, says that for healthy children — those age 6 months to 17 years — decisions about COVID vaccination should come from "shared clinical decision-making," which is "informed by a decision process between the healthcare provider and the patient or parent/guardian." "Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the CDC says. The vaccine-skeptic secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., contended in a video posted on Tuesday there was a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." However, an earlier presentation by CDC staff said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides both children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert, said he would have preferred the CDC retain its broader recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get the updated vaccine. "It's simpler," Chin-Hong said. He added there's no new data out there that to him suggests children shouldn't be getting the updated COVID vaccine. A guideline that involves "shared decision-making," Chin-Hong said, "is a very nebulous recommendation, and it doesn't result in a lot of people getting vaccines." Kressly, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the shared clinical decision-making model is challenging to implement "because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks." Some experts had been worried that the CDC would make a decision that would've ended the federal requirement that insurers cover the cost of COVID-19 vaccines for children. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID-19 vaccine can reach around $200. In its adult immunization schedule for people who have medical conditions, the CDC now says it has "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccine. In his 58-second video on Tuesday, Kennedy did not explain why he thought pregnant women should not be recommended to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Chin-Hong, of UCSF, called the decision to drop the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women "100%" wrong. Pregnancy brings with it a relatively compromised immune system. Pregnant women have "a high chance of getting infections, and they get more serious disease — including COVID," Chin-Hong said. A pregnant woman getting vaccinated also protects the newborn. "You really need the antibodies in the pregnant person to go across the placenta to protect the newborn," Chin-Hong said. It's especially important, Chin-Hong and others say, because infants under 6 months of age can't be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they have as high a risk of severe complications as do seniors age 65 and over. There are some questions that don't have immediate answers. Will some vaccine providers start requiring doctor's notes in order for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to get vaccinated? Will it be harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated at a pharmacy? In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it "follows federal guidance and state law regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." The insurer Aetna, which is owned by CVS, is also monitoring any changes federal officials make to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility "and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed." Blue Shield of California said it will not change its practices on covering COVID-19 vaccines. "Despite the recent federal policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women, Blue Shield of California will continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines for all eligible members," the insurer said in a statement. "The decision on whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is between our member and their provider. Blue Shield does not require prior authorization for COVID-19 vaccines." Under California law, health plans regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care must cover COVID-19 vaccines without requiring prior authorization, the agency said Friday. "If consumers access these services from a provider in their health plan's network, they will not need to pay anything for these services," the statement said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
America might finally make childbirth free
As politicians grapple with declining birth rates, the financial burden of giving birth in America — where privately insured families face out-of-pocket costs of nearly $3,000 on average — has captured widespread attention. Last month, when news broke that the Trump administration was considering $5,000 baby bonuses for new parents, comedian Taylor Tomlinson captured the national frustration: 'That's like spritzing a volcano with a water gun.' A recent viral TikTok showing one mother's $44,000 hospital bill shocked viewers worldwide, underscoring the uniquely brutal pressures facing American families. Now, a rare bipartisan solution could directly address at least the problem of expensive childbirth. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, introduced in the Senate last week, would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses — from prenatal care and ultrasounds to delivery, postpartum care, and mental health treatment — without any co-pays or deductibles. (Medicaid, which insures roughly 41 percent of American births, already covers these costs.) The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Josh Hawley (MO), and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (VA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A companion bipartisan version is expected in the House soon, with Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (ME) among the forthcoming cosponsors. Perhaps most striking are the bill's endorsees: organizations that typically find themselves on opposite sides of reproductive health debates. Supporters include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, alongside prominent anti-abortion groups including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action. While the White House has not yet weighed in, Vice President JD Vance championed the idea during his Senate tenure. He publicly called the free childbirth proposal 'interesting' in January 2023, and his office had been preparing bipartisan legislation on the issue last year before being tapped to join the Trump campaign. Notably, Vance's former Senate staffer Robert Orr, who led the childbirth bill initiative, now works for Hawley. Some abortion rights advocacy groups, too, have expressed approval. Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director at Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told me her organization 'proudly supports' the bill. Dorianne Mason, the director of health equity at the National Women's Law Center, said they are 'encouraged' to see the bipartisan effort. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund said the group is still reviewing the bill but 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Reproductive Freedom For All declined to comment. While questions remain about whether eliminating childbirth costs would actually boost birth rates or reduce abortions — as various supporters hope — there's little doubt it would provide crucial relief to families who have already chosen to have children. The unlikely alliance behind the bill traces back to an unexpected source: a journalist's challenge to the anti-abortion movement. The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover essential health benefits, like birth control and cancer screenings, at no cost to patients. This new bill would expand the list of essential health benefits to include prenatal, birth, and postpartum care, and require these services also to be free. The costs would be paid by insurance companies and modest increases in premiums for the 178 million people primarily covered by private plans. On average, premiums would go up by approximately $30 annually, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center think tank. Lawson Mansell, the Niskanen policy analyst who ran the cost modeling, told me he thinks this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. The trade-off, though, is instability: employer-sponsored coverage can disappear just when families need it most, since people often lose their jobs during pregnancy. The bill to cover childbirth costs under private health insurance has an unusual origin story compared to most pieces of legislation in Washington, DC, and reflects evolving factions within the anti-abortion movement. In early July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer at the Atlantic, published a piece urging the anti-abortion movement to take up the cause of making birth free. 'It's time the pro-life movement chose life,' Bruenig, who identifies as pro-life but opposes criminal bans on abortion, wrote. She recommended expanding Medicare to cover the costs, just as Medicare was expanded to cover dialysis and kidney transplants in the early 1970s. Her article cited examples of staggering medical bills, such as one couple charged $10,000 for delivering in Texas and another $24,000 in Indiana. The piece made waves within an anti-abortion movement that was grasping for its next move after the Supreme Court struck down Roe. 'She was really challenging the pro-lifers on this issue, and we found the idea super interesting,' said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Catherine Glenn Foster, then the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, responded a week after publication, praising Bruenig's piece and adding, 'Making birth free should be table stakes as a political matter. I'll work to advance this.' Democrats for Life and Americans United for Life teamed up, and in January 2023 the two organizations released a white paper, fleshing out the 'Make Birth Free' policy in more detail. The authors thanked Bruenig in the acknowledgements for pushing them to take on the idea, and it was this white paper that caught the eye of Vance in the Senate. John Mize, who succeeded Glenn Foster as CEO of Americans United for Life in January 2024, said the Bruenig article arrived at exactly the right moment. He acknowledges his movement 'missed the mark' by being so singularly focused on banning abortion for so many years. 'I think there's been a little bit of paradigm shift in some of the movement — not by all, by any means — but certainly by some parts' to better support women and families. He pointed to the Blueprint for Life coalition which launched in June 2024 to promote more holistic family policies, and he noted that some anti-abortion groups are newly advocating for policies like expanding the Child Tax Credit and paid family leave. Still, many leading anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers have been leading the push to cut federal spending on programs like child care, food assistance, and maternal health care. The Heritage Foundation called the original proposal to make childbirth costs free an 'unjust wealth transfer' and others protested the risk of more 'socialism' in health care as too great. When Bruenig's piece was originally published, she faced fierce pushback from the left. Critics felt the article was insensitive, implicitly endorsing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe, and offering 'fanfic' for a right-wing movement historically opposed to a robust welfare state. Political science professor Scott Lemieux called the piece 'cringe' and 'embarrassing' and 'deluded.' Others said she was pitching 'forced birth but make it free.' The left-wing backlash ultimately prompted Bruenig to quit Twitter. Bruenig says she never expected much uptake on the idea, but is encouraged by recent changes. 'For the last 10 years or more I have contended that the best way to deal with abortion is on the demand side, by creating a welfare system that gives people an honest choice,' she told me. 'There's been, for better or worse, a shift in the way Republicans are thinking about these kinds of things…and in the center, and I'm very impressed to see some uptake on the idea.' She says she's not surprised there was criticism, but was writing for 'people who are persuadable when it comes to what the pro-life movement should be about.' She added that she embraces the 'pro-life' label despite opposing abortion bans because 'I don't think the pro-ban people should get to decide what counts as pro-life policy or philosophy.' Bill supporters are cautiously hopeful about the road ahead for the legislation. The timing reflects converging forces that have created an unusual window for bipartisan family policy. President Donald Trump's election, combined with growing concerns about declining birth rates, has coincided with a shift among some conservatives toward more proactive family policies. Meanwhile, Democrats see an opportunity to advance maternal health goals. The legislation also benefits from political cover on both sides. Republicans can champion it as pro-family policy that potentially reduces abortions, while Democrats can support it as expanding health care access. Crucially, because it doesn't require new government spending but instead redistributes costs through the existing private insurance system, it sidesteps typical fights over federal budget increases. But challenges remain. The upcoming reconciliation process will test whether Republicans prioritize fiscal restraint or family policy when forced to choose. And while Vance previously supported the free birth idea, the administration faces pressure from fiscal conservatives who view any insurance mandates as market interference. Not all conservatives will be thrilled at the idea of tinkering with the Affordable Care Act or facing accusations of supporting socialized medicine. Bill supporters hope the momentum for pronatalist policies might help to combat those kinds of criticisms, though other conservatives have pointed to falling birth rates in places with single-payer health care, too. Still, the legislation has attracted support from heavyweight conservative intellectuals. Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a policy brief earlier this year urging Congress to embrace making childbirth free, even if it doesn't affect birth rates. 'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies,' he wrote. Patrick Brown, a family policy analyst at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center tells me he thinks it's 'the right instinct' to share the costs of parenting more broadly across society, though he hopes it does not 'distract from more broad-based efforts to help parents' such as a larger Child Tax Credit. Mize, of Americans United for Life, has been in 'the planning phases' of working with the White House on family policy. He thinks once the reconciliation bill is done, Republicans and Democrats could either retreat to their camps ahead of the midterms or decide to work together on achievable wins. 'You could see level-headed people say, 'Hey, this is one opportunity for us to put a feather in our cap and say that we're working on a bipartisan basis with our constituents,'' he said. A Senate staffer working on the bill, who requested anonymity to more candidly discuss their plans, said their intention is to move the bill through normal order and attach it to a must-pass legislative package. Both Hawley and Kaine sit on the Senate HELP committee, which holds jurisdiction over the bill. Rep. Golden, who is working on preparing the House version, said they're hoping to introduce their bill within the next week or two. 'While some debates over what [family policy] should look like can be complicated or contentious, this idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life,' he told Vox. 'So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost, not stick people with huge medical bills. That's the kind of simple, commonsense reform that anyone can get behind. '
Ottawa Citizen
3 days ago
- Health
- Ottawa Citizen
Canadian experts strongly recommend COVID vaccines in pregnancy amid U.S. policy changes
Article content Canadian health experts are doubling down on their support of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women amid U.S. policy changes announced by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week. Article content Article content The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada issued a statement reaffirming that COVID-19 vaccines were both safe and recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding and urging people to make vaccine decisions based on science and expertise. Article content Article content 'In an age of growing misinformation and disinformation, the SOGC strongly urges that vaccine decisions, including during pregnancy, be guided by evidence-based science and clinical expertise.' Article content Article content Pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to end up in hospital, need intensive care or require ventilators compared to other women of the same age who are not pregnant, the SOGC statement said. 'Receiving the COVID-19 vaccine helps lower the chances of serious complications for pregnant women, including intensive care admission, the need for a ventilator, preterm birth and death.' Article content The extraordinary statement from the organization underscores the concern about the potential impact of some U.S. health policy changes on vaccine uptake and understanding in Canada as well as the United States. Article content Kennedy's announcement that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be recommended for pregnant women and healthy children was met with concern by many health officials in the U.S. and beyond. Article content Article content The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it was extremely disappointed by the announcement, adding 'we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID-19 infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection.' Article content Article content Dr. Darine El-Chaar, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at The Ottawa Hospital, said the U.S. policy was not based on any scientific evidence or medical concerns. Article content 'There is no clinical or scientific reason.' Article content She said another key concern was how much misinformation and confusion the U.S. policy change could create, possibly leading to vaccine hesitation around COVID-19 and other vaccines recommended during pregnancy to protect mothers and babies. Those include vaccines for influenza, RSV and whooping cough. Article content
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
What the latest COVID vaccine changes mean for pregnant people and children
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced this week that the federal government no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccination for healthy pregnant people and healthy children, a move that immediately raised questions from medical experts. 'Despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families,' Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. 'The COVID vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants.' Kennedy did not cite any data along with his decision, though he has long questioned the need for frequent COVID-19 boosters for children. Removing COVID vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for pregnant people or children could impact the availability of the vaccines or if they are covered by insurance. Dr. Sean T. O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that removing the recommendation 'could strip families of choice.' 'Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage and access remain unclear. … What is clear is that pregnant women, infants and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated,' he said. An HHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to The 19th's request for comment. Here's what we know about Kennedy's announcement and how it could impact pregnant people and access to the vaccines. Scientific studies have shown that pregnant people are at higher risk of developing more severe cases of the virus than people who aren't pregnant. As a result, pregnant people are more likely to end up hospitalized. They are also over 10 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared to the general population. Studies have also shown a link between COVID and an increased risk of stillbirth. Vaccinating pregnant people has not only been shown to lower these risks, but also offers some protection to newborns. Antibodies from a parent who received the vaccine while pregnant can provide some immunity to infants in the weeks and months after birth, according to Charlotte Moser, co-director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. '[It] is the safest way to protect those babies,' she said in an email. Studies have shown that COVID-19 may be less severe in healthy children. But Moser said children who become infected with COVID-19 are at risk of being hospitalized, developing long COVID or dying from the virus. COVID-19 vaccines decrease those risks. 'It is not totally clear yet,' said Joshua Sharfstein, a public health professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He was also a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official under the Obama administration. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance providers are required to cover vaccines recommended by the CDC, but some experts, including Sharfstein, are concerned that this announcement could mean insurance companies are no longer mandated to cover the COVID-19 vaccine for 'healthy' pregnant people and children. It's still too early to know whether private insurance companies will remove vaccines from their coverage. It may still be more cost effective for companies to pay for the vaccine, versus paying for severe illnesses that might result from being unvaccinated, experts said. Sharfstein said private insurance is still clearly required to cover a COVID-19 vaccine for a pregnant person or child who has a medical condition that meets the criteria for a higher risk of severe COVID. But it's unclear who falls under these categories, said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, a longtime expert in infectious diseases. She noted that the health secretary is contradicting an FDA announcement last week that listed pregnant people as a high risk category that makes them eligible for the vaccine. 'They need to get their message straight,' she said in an email. That's also unclear. Richard Hughes, an attorney at the law firm Epstein Becker Green, who previously served as vice president of public policy for a major vaccine manufacturer during the COVID pandemic, said manufacturers could eventually reduce their supply as they determine their bottom lines. That could shake up overall product availability at doctors' offices and pharmacies. In addition, if private insurance companies stop covering the vaccine, it could be a barrier for those with low incomes. 'We know that any amount of out-of-pocket [cost] for a vaccine is going to discourage a patient from getting vaccinated,' he said. 'The more that increases, the less likely they are to get it.' This announcement does not immediately impact the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, a federally-funded initiative that aims to vaccinate children whose parents or caregivers might not be able to afford them. However, given how the health secretary has sidestepped protocol to remove this recommendation for pregnant people, some experts worry that Kennedy may similarly make decisions for the VFC program. Medical experts say Kennedy's announcement — which came via a one-minute video posted on X — appeared unilateral, since a key vaccine panel that would typically make such recommendations did not appear to vote on the matter. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which is housed under the CDC, isn't scheduled to meet again until June. Kennedy, as HHS secretary, does have legal authority to modify recommendations made by an advisory committee, according to Hughes. But experts say this decision is highly unusual. This is the first time a health secretary has circumvented the typical review process for vaccination recommendations, and experts stressed that making these kinds of decisions — which they described as not using the science-based procedures that are in place — puts lives at risk. Several also noted Kennedy's lack of medical expertise and his long history of vaccine skepticism. 'This signals that health advice for all Americans is now subject to the whim of the secretary of HHS who has no relevant expertise and a long track record of misleading people about vaccines. This should be of concern to everyone,' said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's school of public health, in an email. 'I expect there will be lawsuits and I expect the administration is not in a good position for those lawsuits,' said Dorit Rubenstein Reiss, a professor of law at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco. Reiss predicted the decision will be challenged in court by patients who could file a lawsuit if they are denied coverage for the vaccine from insurance companies. Cities and states who buy the vaccination could also sue, she said. Both the lack of evidence presented by the health secretary and what appeared to be procedural irregularities in making this decision could bolster these court challenges, she said. Not only did Kennedy appear to sidestep the committee that makes these decisions, but he appears in the announcement alongside Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Marty Makary, the commissioner of the FDA. Those men have an anti-COVID vaccine bias, and neither role is typically involved in vaccine recommendations. 'It's ignoring our usual process that involves expert deliberation and examination of the decision and making what looks like a political decision without a lot of consideration of the effects,' she said. The fact that Kennedy did not provide evidence for the change is also problematic, Reiss said. 'If you look at the recommendation for pregnant women, it's a lengthy document by ACIP setting up why they think pregnant women should get the vaccine [which includes] data,' she said. That decision can't be reversed with a one-minute video on social media, she said. 'Under administrative law, an agency is expected to explain its actions.' The post What the latest COVID vaccine changes mean for pregnant people and children appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
NHK
5 days ago
- General
- NHK
US removes COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for healthy children, pregnant women
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says coronavirus vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Kennedy, a known vaccine skeptic, announced the change in a social media video on Tuesday. He stated that COVID-19 shots for those groups have been removed from the recommended immunization schedule of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Kennedy said, "We are now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise to Make America Healthy Again." An article in The New York Times says the secretary's "decision upends the standard process for vaccine recommendations." It explains that such recommendations "are made by advisers to the CDC after considering existing studies, data and possible side effects." It adds that the CDC's "director can accept, modify or reject the advisers' suggestions." Kennedy's announcement is raising concerns among experts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement. It says, "Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit."
