How does Alberta's new COVID-19 vaccine policy compare to other provinces? We asked
Most Albertans will no longer be eligible for a free COVID-19 shot this fall.
The provincial government recently announced plans to limit coverage to specific high risk groups, including Albertans living in care homes and group settings, those receiving home care, people on social programs such as AISH, and immunocompromised individuals.
All other seniors, pregnant Albertans and health care workers are not included, despite strong recommendations by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) that they should be vaccinated. NACI also recommends that everyone else may receive an annual dose.
The Alberta government has cited vaccine waste as a key reason for its decision. It pegs the cost at roughly $110 per dose and estimates $135 million worth of vaccines have been discarded.
"I think over the last number of years we've seen Alberta become more of an outlier when it comes to vaccine policy and vaccine programming," said Dr. Samir Sinha, a geriatrician and director of health policy research at the National Institute on Ageing.
"As far as I know right now Alberta is the only province in the country that has diverged from the NACI recommendations."
The change has come about as responsibility for ordering and buying COVID-19 shots shifts from the federal government to the provinces and territories.
CBC News reached out to each province and territory to find out how they're handling COVID-19 vaccine coverage moving forward. Most responded prior to publication time.
British Columbia said it will continue to provide universal coverage. That means all B.C. residents six months of age and older will be eligible for free COVID-19 vaccines this fall and winter. The province's Ministry of Health said those who are at high risk will be strongly encouraged to get a dose.
Ontario pointed to its policy, which states that all residents six months of age and up are eligible for COVID-19 vaccination each fall. The website states annual shots are free of charge.
The Saskatchewan government is still developing its fall and winter immunization policy but told CBC News it is "committed to providing a COVID-19 immunization program based on scientific evidence and clinical expert recommendations made by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)."
Manitoba has signalled it will ensure COVID-19 vaccines are available and free to the public.
When asked whether Manitoba would follow Alberta's lead at a recent press conference, Manitoba Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara was unequivocal.
"Vaccines are important. We are a government that believes in science," Asagwara said.
"COVID vaccines will be readily available for Manitobans at the right time. There will be no charge. There are lots of vaccines that we're encouraging people to get. We listen to our public health experts."
Nunavut's government said it also intends to follow NACI guidance.
A spokesperson said the territory will continue offering COVID shots for free to all residents with priority given to high risk groups including elders aged 65 and up, people with chronic medical conditions, those in long-term care, pregnant individuals and others.
A spokesperson for the government of Northwest Territories told CBC News it is working to align its policy with NACI guidance and that the vaccine remains free of charge to all individuals who believe they are high risk, including seniors and people who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.
Nova Scotia said it too will continue to provide free COVID-19 shots, based on the NACI guidance.
And Quebec and New Brunswick told CBC News they're still finalizing their plans for this fall.
Fiona Clement, a professor in the department of community health sciences at the University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine, said Alberta is "really going in a different direction than the other provinces are moving in."
She pointed out that Alberta continues to offer many other vaccines — ranging from childhood immunizations to annual flu shots — for free.
"I do think it underscores that COVID is politicized in a way that other diseases have not been. And it's a bit disappointing to see when really COVID is a very serious infectious disease," Clement said.
Provincial data shows 373 Albertans died due to COVID-19 from August 2024 to June 21, 2025. Influenza resulted in 235 deaths during the same time period.
In addition to reducing access, the Alberta government is no longer allowing pharmacies to offer COVID vaccines.
They will have to be booked through public health clinics. Albertans are expected to pre-order their doses starting on Aug. 11.
"There's a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the more barriers you put up, the lower uptake is," Clement said.
"I think we can expect lower vaccination rates, higher hospitalization rates and higher death rates. And that's really disappointing."
The Alberta government, meanwhile, called the move a "responsible, targeted approach."
"Following the federal government's recent decision to no longer provide COVID-19 vaccines free of charge, Alberta is introducing a cost-recovery model to help offset procurement costs and ensure a sustainable solution for Albertans," an emailed statement from the office of the minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services said, in part.
"Alberta's decisions on coverage and access, while informed by NACI's broad recommendations, are tailored to the province's specific needs, taking into account factors … including expected uptake, previous wastage, and the number of individuals most vulnerable to severe outcomes."
The provincial government also points to declining COVID-19 vaccination rates. Alberta's respiratory virus dashboard shows 13.7 per cent of Albertans received a COVID-19 shot during the last respiratory virus season.
"And vaccine uptake among lower-risk groups has declined significantly in recent seasons," the statement said.
"Reflecting these realities, Alberta's COVID-19 vaccine program will focus on high-risk populations most vulnerable to severe outcomes, while ensuring the best use of taxpayer dollars."
Meanwhile, Sinha, the director of health policy research at the National Institute on Ageing, questioned whether Alberta's decision could spark other provinces to back off their coverage plans down the line.
"Now that Alberta is saying that we're no longer going to cover it for everybody — that NACI would recommend otherwise to be covered — this might open the other door for other provinces that were hedging as well to say, 'If Alberta's not going to cover everyone, neither should we,'" he said.
While the provincial government said its policy followed national guidance, Sinha echoed concerns from other doctors who argue the province is deviating from NACI's recommendations.
He's worried all this will create confusion moving forward.
"My concern about what Alberta's approach is right now is that it's creating less confidence, less convenience and more cost and more barriers to getting vaccinated, which I think is ultimately going to worsen the public health of Albertans," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Exercise Intervention Boosts Colon Cancer Survival Benefits
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello, everyone. I'm Dr Bishal Gyawali, associate professor of oncology at Queens University, Kingston, Canada. I'm very happy to share with you some of the most exciting data that I just saw at the plenary session at ASCO 2025. Before that, I'm going to talk to you about a fantastic new drug called exercisumab. I'm joking, of course. Exercise has been shown to improve the lives of patients with colon cancer. I'm joking that if there were a drug called exercisumab, the data would be so compelling that we'd all want to use it and fund it today. Because this is not a drug and it's about exercise, I see some challenges in implementation. I hope that I'm able to convince you that the data are really compelling and we should make an effort so that our health systems will integrate this as a part of cancer care for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial I'm talking about is called the CHALLENGE trial, which was not presented at the plenary but should have been. In this trial, patients who had high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer, after they completed their adjuvant chemotherapy, were randomized to receive a structured exercise program vs the standard-of-care arm. The standard-of-care arm patients received health education but did not receive a structured exercise program. The goal of the structured exercise program was to improve physical activity by at least 10 MET-hours compared to the baseline of these patients. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Disease-free survival was significantly improved, and overall survival was also significantly improved. The 5-year disease-free survival rates improved by almost 7%, and the 8-year overall survival rates also improved by a similar amount. The hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.72, and the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.63. These are very compelling results. If you compare these results with results from other trials, you'll see that this is a no-brainer. If this were a drug, you would want to use it today. There are some nuances about this trial that I want to highlight. When we talk about the results, some of the comments were, 'Oh yes, I have been asking my patients to exercise anyway.' Exercise improves quality of life, it'll reduce weight, and these are all known to benefit patients. I have been telling my patients to exercise, but this trial is not about telling patients to exercise. This trial is about having a formal, structured exercise program. There are particular details. Patients need to have an in-person visit with a therapist every 2 weeks for the first year and then every month for the next 2 years, so it's a 3-year therapy program. It's a scientifically designed and tailored program. It's not just saying, oh, you should exercise. In fact, saying you should exercise and giving some health education was the control arm of this treatment, not the interventional arm. The control arm patients were told about this trial, the potential benefits of the exercise, why they should enroll in this trial, and they were given health education materials. An interesting observation is that even the control arm patients had improvements in their physical functioning, VO 2 , and all those parameters from baseline to subsequent visits. One limitation is the adherence rate to exercise. We see that the adherence rate kept falling with time. I think that by the end of 3 years, the adherence rate to the exercise program was around 60%-65% in that ballpark, which is a limitation. Having said that, the analysis accounts for all of that. Despite that limitation, we are seeing this substantial benefit. If you want to compare that with the ATOMIC trial, which was a plenary presentation of immunotherapy plus FOLFOX for patients who needed adjuvant FOLFOX in stage III colon cancer patients, of course, the addition of atezolizumab to FOLFOX improved disease-free survival rates. The primary endpoint here was 3-year disease-free survival, and it improved significantly. It was a plenary, and people were making the argument that this should immediately change practice. If you compare that with this exercise trial that I just discussed: A, think about the added toxicities; B, think about the added cost; and C, think about how feasible it is to implement. I think it's a no-brainer that we need to start having health systems funds for a structured exercise program for our patients with colon cancer. Yes, the atezolizumab data and the ATOMIC trial data look very interesting and this is one of the first advances in treatment of adjuvant colon cancer in a long time. This is for patients with microsatellite instability-high status. We don't have overall survival results yet. Disease-free survival is a much more reliable predictor of overall survival in this particular setting. I believe that overall survival might be positive, but we also need to know what percentage of these patients got immunotherapy when they relapsed, because immunotherapy is already standard of care for these patients when they relapse. The other point about this trial is, do they all actually need 1 year of atezolizumab? Probably not. As the discussant highlighted in her talk, in many settings, we are now using neoadjuvant strategies. Using two or three cycles might be enough. The broader point that I'm trying to make is contrasting these two studies and inviting you to think about how different these are, even in terms of magnitude of benefit. The exercise trial has overall survival, not just disease-free survival, at an 8-year time point. When I asked Dr Booth about the cost of this intervention, he said for the whole 3-year time point, it might be around $3000 Canadian dollars. This trial was conducted mostly in Canada and in Australia. As opposed to atezolizumab, where a month of atezolizumab alone is going to cost $15,000, so that's just a perspective I wanted to put forward. One more thing I wanted to talk about today is the SERENA-6 trial, which was discussed at the plenary session. This is a trial for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who have been on a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus aromatase inhibitor for 6 months. They were then tested with ctDNA to detect ESR1 mutations early, and if this was detected, then they were randomized to either follow the same treatment, which is the control arm, or get the new drug. The primary endpoint here was progression-free survival. This was debated often during the season. We have so many debates about progression-free and overall survival, but for this particular trial, progression-free survival makes no sense because this is just detecting relapse early. Detecting relapse early does not always mean that you need to intervene early. Of course, if you are intervening early, then you are going to prolong time to tumor progression. The progression-free survival in this sense is more like time on treatment with this drug rather than true progression-free survival. You're just changing treatment early, and the control arm patients are not getting that treatment when they progress. Measuring progression-free survival alone here felt similar to measuring CA-125, or whatever tumor markers we measure, then instituting treatment early and claiming that patients have a longer time on treatment, when in fact, it's just lead time bias or intervening early without knowing that it's going to improve outcomes. A final trial from the plenary session was the MATTERHORN trial. I want to bring that up as well because this trial was investigating durvalumab plus perioperative FLOT in patients with esophageal cancers. This trial had a significant improvement in event-free survival, but has not improved overall survival yet. It may or may not translate into an overall survival improvement. The discussant did not cover the limitations of this trial well, and that's why I wanted to bring it up. There are several factors to consider here. There are other trials in similar settings, where event-free or disease-free survival have improved, but overall survival has not. There is no point in getting super excited about this because it may not translate to overall survival, just like other immunotherapy trials in this space. The other thing is, we need to make sure what treatments patients are getting at the time of progression or at the time of relapse. Are they getting the right treatment?If they're not getting the right treatment, then any survival difference can be simply a function of the control arm patients not getting the right treatment at the time of relapse. If we compare these results with results of other immunotherapy trials, I don't think the results are substantially different. Yes, an event-free survival improvement is important, but especially in this setting, in this disease, we have seen other trials where disease-free or event-free survival have not necessarily led to an overall survival improvement. We need to be asking ourselves, can we claim that it is already practice changing without having those results? I don't think that's the case. Those are some of my thoughts from this year's plenary session at ASCO 2025. Thank you.
WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
With RFK Jr. in Charge, Insurers Aren't Saying If They'll Cover Vaccines for Kids If Government Stops Recommending Them
Jul 2, 2025 10:25 AM RFK Jr.'s vaccine advisory board could stop recommending some routine childhood immunizations, leaving insurers to decide whether to still cover them. For now, most are remaining tight-lipped. Photograph:In the wake of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) announcing plans to revisit its recommended schedule for childhood vaccinations—a move that has drawn widespread criticism from experts—major insurers have not confirmed whether they'll continue to cover the full cost of routine shots for children. For 60 years ACIP has provided vaccine guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including on the timing and dosage of childhood immunizations. Insurers are required to cover the cost of most jabs on the recommended schedule for children. On Wednesday June 25, ACIP announced it would review the schedule, just weeks after health secretary and longtime anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. replaced the entire committee with his own appointees. When WIRED then asked 21 of the country's largest health insurance groups whether they would stop providing cost-free coverage of current routine immunizations in the event ACIP stops recommending them, only Blue Shield of California—a company in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association—confirmed it would. 'As a payer our role is to ensure ongoing coverage and access to preventive, evidence-based care, including immunizations,' says company spokesperson Mark Seelig. 'Therefore, Blue Shield of California is committed to maintaining coverage of immunizations. The decision on whether to receive a vaccine is between our member and their provider.' Other large insurers, including UnitedHealthcare (which provides coverage for 50 million people), Cigna, Kaiser Permanente, Anthem, Humana, and Centene Corporation, did not respond to requests for comment. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan said it had no comment. Most insurers that did respond said they were keeping an eye on developments in Washington, without indicating whether they would or would not cover vaccines dropped from the recommended schedule. 'Vaccines play an important role in the prevention of more serious illnesses,' says Phil Blando, a spokesperson at CVS Health, which owns the insurer Aetna. 'We are monitoring any changes the federal government makes to vaccination guidance and eligibility and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed.' Highmark Inc., part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, operating in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and New York, is also waiting to see what decision ACIP reaches. 'We are closely monitoring the evolving vaccine discussions occurring in Washington, DC. Various vaccines and immunizations are covered under Highmark's member benefits, with any future coverage considerations to be evaluated as more information becomes available,' says spokesperson Aaron Billger. Bryan Campen, of Health Care Service Corporation—the licensee of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas—notes that no changes have yet been made to the vaccines ACIP recommends or the company's vaccine coverage, but says that the company will 'continue to monitor any activity that may impact preventive care recommendations and will communicate any changes to recommendations that may impact standard coverage of preventive services.' Insurers had an eye on changes in ACIP guidance even before the committee announced it would revisit the schedule. 'As we navigate an evolving health care landscape, maintaining robust immunization coverage continues to be a top priority for protecting both individual and community health,' the industry's trade association, AHIP, said in a June 24 statement, the day before ACIP's announcement. 'We are committed to ongoing coverage of vaccines to ensure access and affordability for this respiratory virus season,' the statement continued. 'We encourage all Americans to talk to their health care provider about vaccines.' ACIP made headlines in early June when RFK Jr. fired all 17 of its members and replaced them with eight new appointees. (The HHS secretary appoints the committee's members, but conventionally they serve fixed 4-year terms.) These new appointees include Retsef Levi, who has stated—in the face of scientific consensus—that mRNA vaccines are deadly, and Robert Malone, who routinely shares articles about supposed links between cancer and the Covid vaccine, which no credible research has found to exist. Neither Levi nor Malone replied to a request for comment. Michael A. Ross, another recently appointed committee member, resigned from ACIP during a review of his financial holdings, the New York Times reported on June 24. When introducing his new ACIP appointees in a post on X earlier in June, RFK Jr. had described Ross as a faculty member at George Washington and Virginia Commonwealth universities—but spokespeople for the universities told NBC News4 that Ross had not taught at either in years. Ross did not reply to a request for comment. The committee made news again on June 25 when, during its first meeting of the year, it announced it would form a working group to review the recommended immunization schedule for children and teens. 'The number of vaccines that our children and adolescents receive today exceed what children in most other developed nations receive, and what most of us in this room received when we [were] children,' ACIP chair Martin Kulldorff said during the meeting. He noted that the group would examine the 'cumulative effect' of the recommended vaccine schedule, including interactions between vaccines, the total number of vaccines given, their timing, and recipients' exposure to vaccine ingredients. But the process for adding vaccines to the schedule is already rigorous. Before a vaccine can receive FDA licensure, its manufacturer must prove it does not negatively affect the safety or immune response of other vaccines administered at the same time on the schedule, says Paul Offit, director of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's Vaccine Education Center. In addition, 'the notion that these vaccines are somehow weakening your immune system or overwhelming your immune system is fanciful,' Offit says. Today, children are exposed to fewer viral or bacterial proteins in the first few years of the vaccine schedule than those in earlier generations. When Offit's parents received the smallpox vaccine, they were exposed to 200 proteins in a single shot. In contrast, the measles vaccine only contains 10. During the meeting, Kulldorff repeated claims he made in 2024 that he was fired from Harvard because he refused to get the Covid vaccine; he and Malone have also each served as paid expert witnesses in two separate suits against Merck over the safety of the company's HPV vaccine and its mumps vaccine, respectively. Kulldorff did not reply to a request for comment. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did not send representatives to last week's ACIP meeting, as it typically does. According to Academy president Susan Kressly, this was because the AAP believes the vaccine recommendation process lost credibility when its original membership was gutted by Kennedy. 'We won't lend our name or our expertise to a system that is being politicized at the expense of children's health,' Kressly said in a video posted online before the meeting was set to begin. The AAP did not reply to a request for comment about the video. The most recent child immunization schedule that the AAP endorses, from November 2024, is posted on the AAP website. A newer one, posted on the CDC site, has already changed recommendations. It no longer lists as 'routine' Covid vaccines for children under 18 who are not immunocompromised, but instead lists them under vaccines recommended for 'shared clinical decision-making,' informed by 'personal preference and circumstances.' The change should not affect insurance coverage.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
UnitedHealth: Buy Or Sell UNH Stock At $325?
CANADA - 2025/04/06: In this photo illustration, the UnitedHealth Group logo is seen displayed on a ... More smartphone screen. (Photo Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) UnitedHealth's stock (NYSE:UNH) has undergone a noticeable decline, decreasing from a peak of around $600 in April to about $275 in May, and then making a slight recovery to $325. This drop followed the company's announcement of disappointing Q1 results, the later retraction of its earnings forecast, and sudden shifts in top management. While these occurrences have naturally raised concerns regarding UNH stock, it is also trading at very appealing valuations. Additionally, as outlined below, the company exhibits robust operating performance and financial health across key metrics such as Growth, Profitability, Financial Stability, and Downturn Resilience. Nevertheless, for those investors who prefer less volatility than individual stocks, the Trefis High Quality portfolio offers an alternative — having surpassed the S&P 500 and delivered returns greater than 91% since its inception. Separately, see – SOFI Stock To $30? How Does UnitedHealth's Valuation Look vs. The S&P 500? When considering what you pay per dollar of sales or profit, UNH stock appears inexpensive in relation to the broader market. How Have UnitedHealth's Revenues Grown Over Recent Years? UnitedHealth's Revenues have exhibited significant growth in recent years. How Profitable Is UnitedHealth? UnitedHealth's profit margins are significantly lower than those of most companies covered by Trefis. Does UnitedHealth Look Financially Stable? UnitedHealth's balance sheet appears robust. How Resilient Is UNH Stock During A Downturn? UNH stock has proven to be more resilient than the benchmark S&P 500 index during some recent downturns. As investors speculate on the possibility of a soft landing in the U.S. economy, how serious could it get if another recession strikes? Our dashboard How Low Can Stocks Go During A Market Crash shows how significant stocks fared during and after previous market crashes. Putting All The Pieces Together: What It Means For UNH Stock In conclusion, UnitedHealth's performance regarding the outlined metrics is as follows: UnitedHealth has shown strong performance across the previously mentioned parameters. This, in conjunction with its current low valuation, renders the stock appealing and reinforces our finding that UNH represents a worthwhile buying opportunity. Of course, there's always a level of uncertainty. In light of the recent challenges, including Centene's latest withdrawal of guidance, investors may be cautious about selecting UNH. However, for long-term investors, the presently discounted valuation is likely advantageous, especially given the company's consistent history of strong performance. While UNH stock appears promising, investing in a single stock can carry risks. Conversely, the Trefis High Quality (HQ) Portfolio, comprising 30 stocks, has a history of comfortably outperforming the S&P 500 over the last 4-year period. What accounts for this? Collectively, HQ Portfolio stocks produced superior returns with lower risk compared to the benchmark index; providing a less turbulent experience, as demonstrated by HQ Portfolio performance metrics.
