Kennedy's new vaccine advisers meet for first time
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Special to the American Press)
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers began their first meeting Wednesday under intense scrutiny from medical experts worried about Americans' access to lifesaving shots.
First on the agenda is an awkward scenario: Kennedy already announced COVID-19 vaccines will no longer be recommended for healthy children or pregnant women, and his new advisers aren't scheduled to vote on whether they agree. Yet government scientists prepared meeting materials calling vaccination 'the best protection' during pregnancy — and said most children hospitalized for COVID-19 over the past year were unvaccinated.
COVID-19 remains a public health threat, resulting in 32,000 to 51,000 U.S. deaths and more than 250,000 hospitalizations since last fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most at risk for hospitalization are seniors and children under 2 — especially infants under 6 months who could have some protection if their mom got vaccinated during pregnancy, according to the CDC's presentation.
It's one signal that this week's two-day meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices isn't business as usual.
Another sign: Shortly before the meeting, a Virginia-based obstetrician and gynecologist stepped down from the committee, bringing the panel's number to just seven. The Trump administration said Dr. Michael Ross withdrew during a customary review of members' financial holdings.
The meeting opened as the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it will continue publishing its own vaccine schedule for children but now will do so independently of the ACIP, calling it 'no longer a credible process.'
The panel, created more than 60 years ago, helps the CDC determine who should be vaccinated against a long list of diseases, and when. Those recommendations have a big impact on whether insurance covers vaccinations and where they're available, such as at pharmacies.
Earlier this month, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. And a number of the CDC's top vaccine scientists — including some who lead the reporting of data and the vetting of presentations at ACIP meetings — have resigned or been moved out of previous positions.
The highly unusual moves prompted a last-minute plea from a prominent Republican senator to delay this week's meeting. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who chairs the chamber's health committee, said Monday that many of Kennedy's chosen panelists lack the required expertise and 'may even have a preconceived bias' against new vaccine technologies.
In a House hearing Tuesday, Kennedy defended his purge, saying the old panel had been 'a template for medical malpractice.'
Rep. Kim Schrier, a pediatrician and Democrat from Washington state, told Kennedy: 'I will lay all responsibility for every death from a vaccine-preventable illness at your feet.' Committee will vote on RSV protections
The two-day meeting's agenda on was abruptly changed last week.
Discussion of COVID-19 shots will open the session on Wednesday. Later in the day, the committee will take up RSV, with votes expected. On Thursday, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations and on the use of a preservative in certain flu shots.
RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, is a common cause of cold-like symptoms that can be dangerous for infants.
In 2023, U.S. health officials began recommending two new measures to protect infants — a lab-made antibody for newborns and a vaccine for pregnant women — that experts say likely drove an improvement in infant mortality.
The committee will discuss another company's newly approved antibody shot, but the exact language for the vote was not released prior to the meeting.
'I think there may be a theme of soft-pedaling or withdrawing recommendations for healthy pregnant women and healthy children,' even though they are at risk from vaccine-preventable diseases, said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University who co-authored a recent medical journal commentary criticizing the COVID-19 vaccination decision. Flu shot recommendations to be debated
At its June meetings, the committee usually refreshes guidance for Americans 6 month and older to get a flu shot, and helps greenlight the annual fall vaccination campaign.
But given the recent changes to the committee and federal public health leadership, it's unclear how routine topics will be treated, said Jason Schwartz, a Yale University health policy researcher who has studied the committee.
Thursday also promises controversy. The advisory panel is set to consider a preservative in a subset of flu shots that Kennedy and some antivaccine groups have falsely contended is tied to autism. In preparation, the CDC posted a new report confirming that research shows no link between the preservative, thimerosal, and autism or any other neurodevelopmental disorders.
Gostin said the agenda appears to be 'a combination of what we would normally expect ACIP to cover along with a mixture of potential conspiracy theories,' he said. 'We clearly are in a new normal that's highly skeptical of vaccine science.'
The committee's recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover.
But the CDC currently has no director, so the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy, and he has yet to act on a couple recommendations ACIP made in April.
The CDC director nominee, Susan Monarez, is slated to go before a Senate committee on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
New Englanders clash over Trump's sweeping health reforms
And he is not alone. In a recent Globe survey of 11 New Englanders across the political spectrum, all seven respondents who voted against Trump said they worry that basic health insurance and many vaccines will be harder to obtain for those who need them if the Big Beautiful Bill becomes law. The four respondents who voted for Trump, despite being unfamiliar with many of the legislation's specifics, said they support changes to health care programs to repair what some of them called a broken, bloated system. Advertisement The voters were surveyed as part of an ongoing Globe series on their views on the first year of the Trump administration, with previous installments centered on The cost of health care has been a major focus for Trump, who has said he wants to eliminate waste and fraud from programs such as Medicaid. The president has said he wants the legislation passed before July 4. But along with savings, Trantham noted, many experts predict that more Americans will end up uninsured if Trump's vision becomes the new landscape of national health care. Advertisement 'There will be more people who can't afford their medications. There'll be more people who avoid going to the doctor because they don't have the money,' said Trantham, who is an unenrolled voter and voted for former vice president Kamala Harris in 2024. 'And then they'll end up needing a higher level of medical care, which then puts a broad burden on the rest of us,' he added. Related : Trump's passed by the House, many The agency also predicted that 4 million people could see their access to food stamps reduced or eliminated. In addition to benefit cuts, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill would increase the US deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And on Thursday, Joann Flaminio, 69, a retired Democrat from Providence, said she is concerned that few people are aware of the myriad dangers tucked into the sprawling bill. 'The devil really is in the details. And one of the proposals in the Big Beautiful Bill — that requires Medicaid recipients to re-enroll every six months — is a draconian measure designed to deny services to those most in need,' said Flaminio, who served as retirement administrator for the state of Rhode Island. Advertisement 'My sister was on Medicaid in the final years of her life, and I know what the application process is like in order to get somebody approved. Many people hire a lawyer in order to do that, but it can be arduous, and it certainly is,' she added. The president's bill also would impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, from ages 19 to 64, who would need to work at least 80 hours per month if they did not qualify for exemptions. From her experience, Flaminio said, linking benefits to work requirements is impractical. 'We tried to mandate work requirements ... for those people who are on disability benefits,' Flaminio said. 'And I would say, for the most part, it's a waste of time and effort. The vast majority of recipients, an estimated 96 percent, cannot work, which is the reason why they apply for Medicaid in the first place.' But for the survey's Trump supporters, trimming the Medicaid rolls is worthwhile if it rids the system of fraud and abuse. Seth Sole-Robertson, a 45-year-old Republican from Medway, was asked if Medicaid cuts concern him. 'I'd be concerned if I was an illegal alien,' Sole-Robertson answered, 'and I'd be concerned if I were committing fraud.' The goal is to strip benefits from 'people who are ineligible or taking it in two different states,' said Sole-Robertson, who owns a marine repair business. 'There's lots of hoopla or fake news about what's going on with Medicaid.' Karen Sysyn, 54, an unenrolled Trump supporter from Londonderry, N.H., said she wasn't sure where the bill was headed or what was in it. 'I hear a lot of rumors that they're looking at cutting Social Security and disability and stuff like that,' she said. Advertisement If people are able to work, taxpayers should not bear their burden, said Sysyn, who is searching for work after losing her job as a housing inspector. But if people are genuinely in need of support from Social Security or Medicare, they should receive support, she added. Another unenrolled Trump supporter, 56-year-old Brian Jankins of Sutton, was asked what he knew about the bill. 'Full disclosure, very little,' said Jankins, who works in banking. However, he added, 'our current health care system is broken and dysfunctional ... I'm not versed in what this bill does to address that, but it is broken.' Related : Respondents' opinions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, also were sharply divided, with Trump supporters endorsing his stance against vaccines, among other initiatives, and the president's opponents saying Kennedy was endangering lives. 'I think more Americans are going to die under some of the changes that he's making around vaccinations,' said Vanessa Coppola, a 42-year-old Democrat from North Yarmouth, Maine. Over the administration's first five months, Kennedy became a lightning rod for controversy because of his antivaccine stance, his references to autism as a preventable disease, and his ouster and replacement of the entire immunization advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coppola, a job coach and consultant, is particularly worried about Kennedy's proposal to eliminate the COVID vaccine recommendation for healthy pregnant women. Those vaccinations provide coverage for newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to respiratory disease, she said. Anand Sharma, 53, a Democrat from Shrewsbury and electrical engineer, called the rolling drama at the Department of Health and Human Services part of 'the chaos [that] is everywhere right now.' Advertisement And Justina Perry, a 37-year-old Democrat from New Bedford, denounced Kennedy's antivaccine agenda. 'Viruses are going to love this,' said Perry, who runs a physical therapy clinic. 'They're going to be able to spread and spread, and they win in this situation because we're pulling back vaccine access. So the only one who should be excited about this is a virus.' But Darryll White, an unenrolled Trump voter from Skowhegan, Maine, supports Kennedy's efforts to change government guidance on vaccines. Kennedy's work is 'a long-haul scenario — to make America healthy again,' said White, 66, who added that efforts by the news media to 'demonize' the secretary have made his job harder. 'People have to understand that Robert Kennedy is under intense pressure,' added White, the director of a nonprofit community park. White said he supports Kennedy's proposal to upend the government's vaccine guidance. 'That's exactly what needs to happen,' said White, who believed the government was not transparent during the pandemic about possible adverse effects of the COVID vaccine. The respondents were sharply divided yet again about the administration's drastic cuts in medical research grants, and those views aligned with whether they had voted for the president. The cuts have had an outsize effect on universities and other research institutions in the Boston area, particularly at Harvard University, where the government has canceled about $2.6 billion in awarded grants. 'He's cutting off his nose to spite his face,' Rosemary Shea, 62, an unenrolled voter from Hampton, N.H., said of Trump, who she voted against. 'I mean, Harvard is not just doing this research for themselves. They're doing it for the world.' Advertisement 'These universities are doing great research for diseases that are still out there that we have not cracked yet — Parkinson's, cancer, all different types of cancers," Shea added. 'He's just decided 'nope.' And I haven't even heard a logical explanation for it.' Sole-Robertson, the Medway Republican, offered a sharply different take on the government's role in funding medical research. 'A lot of this needs to be shifted back to private industry and raising funds in the private sector,' he said. 'I think a lot of it is just pure nonsense.' Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Portland-made documentary aims to make senior homelessness ‘personal'
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A Portland non-profit, Humans for Housing, is taking its documentary to Capitol Hill in an effort to shine a light on senior homelessness. The documentary, 'No Place to Grow Old,' was released in the fall of 2024, following the stories of three seniors in Portland who were priced out of housing. Screening the film in Washington D.C. on Wednesday in front of lawmakers and policy experts, Humans for Housing is aiming to humanize the homeless crisis, and ensure it's 'personal,' for lawmakers. Neighbors distressed over planned homeless shelter in Portland's Pearl District 'The documentary, 'No Place to Grow Old,' really began as a thought between me and Michael Larson, who's the founder of Humans for Housing,' the film's director Davey Schaupp told KOIN 6 News. 'We were looking to build a film that was going to humanize people experiencing homelessness.' The documentary comes as over 140,000 Americans age 55 and older are experiencing homelessness on any given day. That number is expected to triple by the year 2030, according to a 2019 report from the University of Pennsylvania. Zooming into Portland, the metro area recorded nearly 2,000 people aged 55 years or older who experienced homelessness the night of January 22, according to Dr. Marisa Zapata, Portland State University associate professor of urban studies and planning. Portland native, former UO student joins cast of 'Love Island USA' 'Similar to national trends the number of aging adults continues to grow in the Portland region. This year's count increased by 800 people between 2022-2025, a 63% increase,' Dr. Zapata told KOIN 6. 'Homelessness for all people is driven by a lack of affordable housing. For aging adults, fixed incomes, illness, non-accessible housing, and the death of a partner can make maintaining or accessing housing even harder.' 'We saw this huge tidal wave of older adults who are aging into homelessness and yet it didn't feel like nearly enough people were talking about it,' Schaupp explained. 'That is what really sparked the desire to make the film…The storyteller part of me thought Portland would be a really good focus because Portland has a pretty negative reputation nationally for homelessness and I think there's a lot of stereotypes that people put Portland in when it comes to homelessness.' 'I think there's a myth, a very American myth, that homelessness is an individual failure, that if someone is homeless, that it is a result of their capacity, that they're either lazy, they don't have drive, that they want to be homeless or there's some kind of moral or character failure on their part which results in them being homeless,' Schaupp said. 'I think that myth of individual failure is one we've tried to at least address and show that individual choices, of course, affect how your life plays out and have a huge effect on it, but there's also a lot of systemic factors that play a part in if someone has stable housing or not,' Schaupp added. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Schaupp pointed to — professor of medicine at University of California San Francisco's Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative — who says there are two questions society should ask when discussing homelessness. First: why is this person homeless? 'We love to focus on, oh this person might have a drug habit, or this person might display X, Y, Z characteristics, or have a mental health disorder,' Schaupp said. The second question is: why are so many people homeless? Amtrak Cascades, 'one of the most scenic train rides,' unveils new look for 2026 'I think that's really what we're trying to expose in pieces of this film is our housing crisis is a huge cause of so much homelessness. And we're seeing people metaphorically jumping out of a building and we're asking why they're dying but not why they're jumping,' Schaupp said. 'No Place to Grow Old' features the story of Herbert Olive, a man in his 60s who has lived in Portland for most of his life. Schaupp said Olive's story stuck with him after filming wrapped. 'He owned a home and was doing renovations on it and he actually got a predatorial loan from a bank where they said, 'Hey, we can give you a loan for about $50,000 and this will let you do some more home renovations.' But the way they structured the loan, the payments were so high that he couldn't pay them and then he had a default on his home,' Schaupp said. 'He ended up becoming homeless, and then became a journeyman carpenter. He had worked in carpentry his whole life and then has been going back and forth renting and so now he's still working full time in his 60s but his home was kind of originally his retirement asset, that's where he was building wealth. And so when he lost that, and now he's renting in his 60s, he can pay rent but he's relying on his ability to work and so he's in a precarious situation,' Schaupp explained. 'He does have Social Security, and he does have a pension but those only amount to $1,300-$1,400 which is about the average price of rent in Portland. So, that doesn't even leave him enough to pay for groceries on top of that, car insurance on top of that,' Schaupp added. Since its fall 2024 release at Portland's Newmark Theatre, the documentary has been screened around 100 times. 'I think what I've learned is storytelling really does work. As humans, we like to think we're rational creatures and we like to see data and facts and we make all these decisions objectively, but we really are story creatures and we thrive off story and we connect off story,' Schaupp said, reflecting on the documentary. 'I've been amazed, specifically with Portland, Oregon, how many organizations, different faith groups, different advocacy organizations have come out just to build a space where people can witness these stories. Portland is a city with a lot of heart and people really do care. I think there is a lot of empathy fatigue around homelessness, but Portland is an amazing city,' Schaupp said. 'I think one of the biggest takeaways I learned is as the world gets noisier, as there's more and more crises happening, really what matters or what cuts through the noise is story.' KOIN 6 anchor Jeff Gianola: My journey out of silence Schaupp acknowledges that he's not a housing policy expert, but after speaking with experts, including Zapata, while filming the documentary, he believes creating a housing subsidy for older adults would help keep seniors housed, noting, 'For a lot of these seniors, like Herbert…the extra subsidy of $300 or $400 a month would keep him stably housed.' 'The long-term solution is to fix the housing market. That's really the only way we're going to get out of this crisis,' he added. 'That's been a priority on a lot of politician's dockets in Portland and our mayor, our governor has run on housing, but I think it just really is holding them accountable and delivering results and seeing more housing units built in Oregon and across the country.' The D.C. screening comes as the Oregon House of Representatives unanimously passed House Bill 3589 on Tuesday to address the senior housing crisis. MultCo: Drug users can now receive sobering services without police The bill creates a Senior Housing Development Initiative and invests $24 million to build affordable and accessible homes for low-income seniors and people with disabilities. The $24 million will be transferred from Oregon's Property Tax Deferral Program for Disabled and Senior Homeowners, allowing seniors to defer paying property taxes until they move or sell their home. In a press release announcing the bill, the office of Oregon House Speaker Rep. Julie Fahey (D-West Eugene & Veneta) said older adults are the fastest-growing group of people facing homelessness in the United States, noting people over 55 in Oregon make up between 20-25% of the state's houseless population. Oregon state senator resigns from committee after 'aggressive outbursts' 'This is a quiet crisis that's growing fast,' said Rep. Pam Marsh (D-Ashland), chair of the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness and the bill's sponsor. 'We have more older adults on fixed incomes, more people aging without family nearby, and too few housing options that truly meet their needs. We're falling behind—and HB 3589 is a way to start catching up.' Back in D.C., some members of Oregon's congressional delegation are joining the screening, including Senator Ron Wyden (D) and Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-01). 'Homelessness is the most visible, painful symptom of our nation's crisis of housing supply and affordability. Seniors are some of the most vulnerable, and Trump's attacks on Medicaid, critical federal grants for housing projects as well as important food assistance programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires shows where their priorities are,' Wyden said in a statement to KOIN 6. 'I applaud Davey Schaupp and the Humans for Housing team for highlighting the need to address senior homelessness, and I will continue to fight for more resources to combat the affordable housing crisis like my Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing for All Act.' Bonamici added, 'The stories shared by Portlanders in 'No Place to Grow Old' are heartbreaking and too common in Oregon and across the country. As we see a rising number of older Americans experiencing homelessness, this film reminds us of the real lives behind the statistics. Housing is essential for people to find stability, build a better future, and age with dignity. I hope the film inspires members of Congress to pursue effective, evidence-based policies that address the affordable housing shortage and homelessness crisis.' For Schaupp, he hopes the film becomes personal for lawmakers. 'The decision makers, the lawmakers, the congressional staffers… for them to watch the film and for it to feel personal to them because it really is,' Schaupp said. 'We are a country that should be judged on how we treat the most marginalized in our society, the most vulnerable and here, thousands of our seniors in our communities or older adults, or grandparents — these are people's grandparents — and so I would hope that they leave feeling like this is troubling and this is personal and we actually have not just a political obligation but a moral obligation to address this crisis.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
California will see 'devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the "one big, beautiful bill," a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. "This is devastating," Newsom said. "I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is." Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and "return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would "likely" meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would "go through the labyrinth of manual verification," Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had "obliterated" the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are "gutting an already vulnerable system." Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be "fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained." Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
