logo
With federal support uncertain, states and nonprofits scramble to safeguard access to vaccines

With federal support uncertain, states and nonprofits scramble to safeguard access to vaccines

CNNa day ago
After recent moves by the US Department of Health and Human Services to restrict the approval and use of some vaccines — and signs that more changes might be coming — some states and private partnerships are scrambling to ensure that vaccines will still be available to those who want them.
People familiar with various efforts that are underway described them as necessary but not ideal.
'When you start splintering the message from the federal government down states and local health departments, people end up losing faith in everybody. They don't know who to believe,' said one official familiar with several ongoing efforts who spoke on the condition they not be named because they weren't authorized to share the details of those plans.
Several groups, for example, are working to create panels of subject matter experts who would review the latest science behind vaccines and make evidence-based recommendations for their use, much like the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, has done for the past 60 years.
Nine states have banded together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaboration, which is staffed by state and city health officials. The group is organized into committees, and their work has intensified quickly in response to shifting federal health priorities and deep cuts to health agencies, according to a person familiar with the group who was not authorized to share the details of their plans.
'They're specifically looking at how, as a collaborative of states, they can address gaps in federal support and resources moving forward in key public health areas,' the person said. One of the areas they're preparing to address is flagging federal support for vaccines, but the member states also have efforts underway to address pandemic preparedness, laboratory services, epidemiology and other key public health priorities.
One state represented in that group, Maine, has even recently struck language in its vaccine access law referencing ACIP and created a pathway to purchase vaccines outside of the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines for free to children whose families can't afford them, and which public health advocates fear may also be under threat.
Organizers for the effort declined to offer many specifics about the collaboration. They described their work as being in an early stage and said the collaboration was intended only to share information between partners. They stressed that it was not intended to replace or duplicate any federal programs.
'New York state maintains its commitment to protecting access to essential public health services and regularly engages in informal conversations with other states to share information and best practices on public health preparedness,' said a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, one of the states involved in the effort.
The Massachusetts Department of Health also declined to share more specific details about the collaboration but issued a statement: 'The Department of Public Health is committed to maintaining access to evidence-based vaccines for all people in the state. As federal policy decisions are proposed and enacted that impact vaccine infrastructure, Massachusetts is evaluating what may be necessary to have undisrupted access.'
Like Maine, Colorado recently passed legislation to protect coverage for a range of preventive services, including vaccines. In the event the federal government repeals, modifies or gets rid of recommendations for preventive services made by ACIP, the US Preventive Services Task Force or the Health Resources and Services Administration, the new law gives the state's health commissioner leeway to make rules based off recommendations as they existed in January.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to bypass ACIP's process and change the recommendations for Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women in May was a red flag for vaccine access, according to a source familiar with the deliberations of state health departments who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to share the details of those discussions.
His subsequent decision to dismiss all 17 sitting members of ACIP and replace them with eight of his own choices, including several new members who have expressed doubts about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, spurred the drive for change at the state level, the official said.
'I think states are concerned that, based on these early indications, potentially there will be some new challenges for them in terms of being able to support and offer vaccines,' the official said, 'and so I think they are trying to think of different ways in this new environment that we're in that they still are able to provide vaccines.'
ACIP's recommendations are intertwined with state laws in numerous ways, according to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which created a reference list.
For example, several states – including Minnesota, Vermont and Maine – have laws that allow pharmacists and even dentists to give vaccines as long as they're recommended by ACIP. Changing those recommendations could affect the ability of pharmacists or other health care providers to deliver certain shots.
States like New Mexico, Missouri and Alabama tie their requirements for public school enrollment to the most recent version of ACIP's recommendations.
Additionally, states sometimes require educational materials for vaccines to hew to ACIP recommendations. Tennessee, for example, requires hospitals to provide parents of newborns with information about pertussis, or whooping cough, and about the availability of a vaccine for pertussis, using information that's in line with ACIP recommendations.
Beyond state efforts, there are nonprofit startups working to maintain vaccine access.
One such effort is the Vaccine Integrity Project, which is being coordinated by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and supported by an unrestricted grant from Walmart heiress Christy Walton. The group's steering committee comprises medical and public health experts, former elected officials and former leaders of federal agencies.
The initiative aims to counter disinformation around vaccines and provide updated guidelines on their use based on evolving science and safety information.
It's also seeking to work with states to help them identify ways their vaccine access laws and funding mechanisms may need to change so they can continue to deliver vaccines to their health care providers and pharmacies.
'The emergence of organizations that collaborate to help fill the gap in the federal government is happening, and it needs to happen,' said Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.
'We have to be very forward-thinking about it, because these are programs and services that impact every community in this country in different ways, some more than others. And therefore the impact of programs and services being reduced or whole scale being removed or going away is not known, but we can be sure it will impact the health of every community in this country,' Freeman said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Inside RFK Jr.'s push to change vaccines in America
Inside RFK Jr.'s push to change vaccines in America

Washington Post

time30 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Inside RFK Jr.'s push to change vaccines in America

The meeting of the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in Atlanta on June 26. Every year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gathers to discuss vaccinations and make recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This year, however, the panelists are all new to the job and were all handpicked by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has expressed skepticism of vaccines. Today on 'Post Reports,' host Elahe Izadi speaks with two of The Washington Post's health reporters, Lena Sun and Lauren Weber, about last week's controversial ACIP meeting, and what the future of vaccines in the United States could look like under Kennedy's leadership. Today's show was produced by Emma Talkoff, with help from Thomas Lu. It was edited by Ariel Plotnick, with help from Reena Flores and mixed by Sam Bair. Thanks to Lynh Bui and Fenit Nirappil. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

RFK Jr. Just Let It Slip That He Knows One Of His Health Initiatives May Have Terrible Consequences, And I Knew It Was Bad, But Damn
RFK Jr. Just Let It Slip That He Knows One Of His Health Initiatives May Have Terrible Consequences, And I Knew It Was Bad, But Damn

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. Just Let It Slip That He Knows One Of His Health Initiatives May Have Terrible Consequences, And I Knew It Was Bad, But Damn

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has touted his plan to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), which includes stances backed by questionable scientific evidence. He has spoken out against vaccines, called on states to ban fluoride, and made ableist comments about autism. Just last week, he actually let it slip that he's well aware that at least one of those initiatives could have some terrible consequences. Related: On Fox's The Faulkner Focus, news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay. Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities." The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ." The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health." And not all European countries have banned fluoride in their drinking water. In May 2025, the BBC reported that some areas have naturally occurring fluoride in their water, while others choose to fluoridate their milk, salt, or bottled water. In addition, the National Toxicology Program's study that the secretary cited specifically says that "lower IQ in children" can occur with the consumption of water containing "more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter," which is twice the CDC-recommended saturation of 0.7 milligrams per liter. They added directly, "It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ." Related: Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water." Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity." —Stank_Dukem "So, honestly asking says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?" —pixiegod Related: "I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF." —Apprehensive_Cheek77 "For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most." —brookmachine "How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?" —Impressive_Car_4222 Related: The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care." "Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another. And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege." If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: Are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

This Supreme Court Health Insurance Ruling Affects 150 Million Americans—What This Means for Cancer Patients
This Supreme Court Health Insurance Ruling Affects 150 Million Americans—What This Means for Cancer Patients

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

This Supreme Court Health Insurance Ruling Affects 150 Million Americans—What This Means for Cancer Patients

Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. In a critical victory for patients on June 27th, the Supreme Court has determined that health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, must continue to fully cover preventative services, including cancer screenings, HIV prevention medication, and mental health counseling, without co-pays or deductibles. An estimated 150 million Americans will benefit from the ruling, according to the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown Law. These preventative treatments have been available to Americans under the ACA since the law went into effect over a decade ago—and advocates argued that eliminating access could pose significant health care risks to those who rely on them the most. Before the ruling, a New Orleans lower court had deemed the ACA's preventative services mandate unconstitutional, arguing that the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force were not validly appointed. Had the decision stood, insurers could impose cost-sharing on screenings, meaning patients could have been forced to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs, potentially leading to skipped exams and life-threatening delayed diagnoses. A 2024 report published in Health Services Research revealed that with the implementation of ACA, patients receiving cancer treatment increased by 6.2%, with a noted sharp increase in 2016 when Medicaid expansion took effect in Pennsylvania. Another progress report by the American Association for Cancer Research found that the ACA shrunk other coverage gaps, including the rate of delayed surgery, which dropped from 9.8% to 8.4% after Medicaid expansion for patients belonging to ethnic minority groups. Although this ruling heavily impacts cancer screenings, it also preserves coverage for other preventative care like cholesterol, blood pressure checks, lung cancer screenings, HIV prevention (PrEP), medications to prevent breast cancer, and immunizations. Patients who face multiple health risks should use a holistic approach and capitalize on ACA's benefits for a robust safety net. Consumers should: Maintain regular screenings: The Affordable Care Act continues to fully cover routine cancer screenings at no cost. Make use of annual mammograms, colonoscopies, or lung-cancer risk to catch anything at an early stage. The Affordable Care Act continues to fully cover routine cancer screenings at no cost. Make use of annual mammograms, colonoscopies, or lung-cancer risk to catch anything at an early stage. Watch for policy changes: Though coverage remains solid for now, future reforms or appointee decisions under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, could mean changes in the future. Stay alert to federal health updates. The Supreme Court's ruling is a significant win for cancer patients and public health. By guaranteeing continued access to free preventative care, it helps improve early detection, reduce treatment costs and barriers, and save lives. However, vigilance is key. Patients should stay aware of administrative changes that might shift the policy basis of covered services in the future.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store