
Vaccines could get more expensive and harder to access after RFK Jr. purged a CDC panel
The changes could potentially impact vaccine cost and availability in California and the uncertainty is making families anxious, experts say.
'I've been having several conversations every day with families who are trying to get their children vaccinated early because parents are worried that these vaccines will not be available for their children in the near future,' said Eric Ball, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics in California.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice provides vaccine recommendations to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The group's guidance doesn't just have medical implications; it also has financial consequences for people seeking vaccinations.
'Under the Affordable Care Act, if ACIP recommends a vaccine, insurance companies have to cover it,' said Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC College of the Law San Francisco, who specializes in vaccine-related law and policies. The federally funded Vaccines for Children program also covers recommended vaccines for uninsured and underinsured children, Reiss said.
Potentially, the new ACIP members could alter recommendations, which would in turn affect coverage for vaccines. Nothing is certain, however: 'We don't know how this (newly) constituted committee will vote,' Reiss said. The advisory committee is scheduled to meet on June 25 to review scientific data and vote on vaccine recommendations.
If problems do arise around vaccine access, there could be additional issues for California's immunization mandates for schools. 'How can you mandate a vaccine if people can't access it?' Reiss said.
The sweeping changes to ACIP, established in 1964, are unprecedented, experts say.
'I can't even think of a time when an individual member has been removed from the committee,' said Yvonne Maldonado, a professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford and one of the 17 experts removed from the vaccine advisory committee this week.
'We are really in uncharted territory here, in terms of the membership changing so radically and so quickly,' Maldonado said.
Maldonado explained that the existing process for evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness is 'incredibly rigorous,' with numerous safety checkpoints.
'Vaccines are foundational to public health,' Maldonado said. 'They save millions of lives.'
Reiss added that the United States has a system that allows people who experience problems due to a CDC-recommended vaccine to seek compensation from the government. This limits the liability of vaccine companies. If new advisory committee members remove current vaccine recommendations, Reiss said she is concerned 'that some manufacturers might leave the vaccine market.'
In an editorial published Monday in the Wall Street Journal, Secretary Kennedy wrote that the 17 ACIP members were 'retired' because 'the committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest.'
Experts roundly disagreed with the claims and numerous medical organizations quickly spoke out. 'That's very telling,' said Catherine Flores, executive director of the California Immunization Coalition, a statewide nonprofit advocacy and education organization around immunizations.
While past ACIP vaccine experts were thoroughly vetted, details about the process for the newly announced group aren't clear, Flores said. Flores is concerned some committee members may lack the previous ACIP members' level of expertise about vaccines.
'We are very concerned about what's next,' Flores said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Which beaches in NY are closed for swimming right now? See the list
As New Yorkers prepare to celebrate Independence Day, several popular beaches on Long Island have been temporarily closed due to elevated levels of bacteria in the water, according to public health departments on Long Island. Health officials in and counties have restricted swimming at the following beaches since June 25, citing concerns over potential illness caused by contaminated water: Benjamin Beach in Bay Shore Ronkonkoma Beach in the Town of Islip Sayville Marina Park Beach in Sayville Morgan Beach in Glen Cove Biltmore Beach Club in Massapequa These closures will remain in place until follow-up water quality testing confirms it is safe to swim again. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that bacteria such as vibrio, which are commonly found in coastal waters, can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhea and vomiting to skin infections and, in severe cases, life-threatening illness. Beachgoers are urged to check with their local health departments or visit the for the latest updates before heading to the shore. As of June 26, Long Point State Park on Lake Chautauqua in Chautauqua County is closed due to a harmful algal bloom. As of June 30, Cedar Point State Park's swimming beach in Jefferson County is closed since no lifeguards are on duty. Beaches in state parks are closed when there is a known or anticipated public health or safety risk. Closures may be triggered by: Elevated bacteria levels Harmful algal blooms Sewage overflows Rough water or poor weather Lack of available lifeguards Cold water temperatures (below 50°F) Signs are posted and the public is notified within 18–24 hours after an elevated bacteria level is detected. The source is not always clear but can include: Stormwater runoff Land use within the watershed Naturally occurring bacteria in sand or soil Heavy rainfall or environmental changes like strong winds or high waves Freshwater samples: Tested for E. coli: A result of 235 colonies/100 mL or higher exceeds the state standard Ocean samples (Long Island): Tested for enterococci: A result of 104 colonies/100 mL or higher exceeds the state standard New York uses a two-category system for beach management at its state parks: Category 1: The beach remains open with an advisory. If poor water quality is confirmed in a second test, it is closed. Category 2: The beach is automatically closed until a passing sample is obtained. Exceedance: Bacterial levels exceed the state standard Predicted exceedance (model or rainfall): Environmental conditions suggest unsafe water High waves or turbidity: Unsafe for swimmers or lifeguards can't see clearly No lifeguard: Beaches close when no supervision is available Cold water: Below 50°F End of season: Seasonal closures This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: NY beaches closed: See the full list before you head out


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Project 2025 At Supreme Court: How Groups Influenced Court This Term
Groups involved with controversial right-wing agenda Project 2025 were broadly successful at the Supreme Court this term, a Forbes analysis shows, as justices sided with arguments pushed by organizations linked to the agenda in a majority of major cases but ruled against three groups who were directly representing parties at the court. People gather to protest Project 2025 in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March ... More 16. AFP via Getty Images While spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, more than 100 conservative organizations were listed as being on the 'advisory board' for Project 2025, a multi-pronged agenda drafted before the 2024 election that proposed a broad overhaul of the executive branch by the next conservative president. Approximately 30 of those organizations filed briefs with the Supreme Court in major cases this term, according to an analysis of 12 significant cases the court decided between October 2024 and June. There were four major cases in which parties were directly represented by groups linked to Project 2025: Alliance Defending Freedom represented challengers in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—concerning religious charter schools and Planned Parenthood funding, respectively—while America First Legal represented parties in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, on the Affordable Care Act, and Texas Public Policy Foundation represented challengers to the Federal Communications Commission's universal-service obligation in FCC v. Consumers Research. Those organizations and dozens of others also signed on to amicus briefs—filings by outside parties that urge the court to rule a particular way—nearly 60 times in major Supreme Court cases this term. Justices rejected the cases Project 2025-linked groups brought over religious charter schools, the Affordable Care Act and the FCC, as well as a case challenging federal rules regarding ghost guns. The organizations that have both been listed as members of Project 2025's 'advisory board' and filed briefs with the Supreme Court last term are the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, Alliance Defending Freedom, America First Legal, American Principles Project, Americans United for Life, the Association of Mature American Citizens, The Claremont Institute, Concerned Women for America, Defense of Freedom Institute, Eagle Forum, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Family Policy Alliance, Family Research Council, Foundation for Government Accountability, Gun Owners Foundation, Institute for the American Worker, Leadership Institute, Makinac Center for Public Policy, Moms for Liberty, Mountain States Policy Center, National Center for Public Policy Research, National Religious Broadcasters, National Rifle Association, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Project 21, Protect Our Kids, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (through its research arm, the Charlotte Lozier Institute), Texas Public Policy Foundation and Young America's Foundation. That list is based on an archived version of Project 2025's website from July 2024, before some organizations removed themselves from the Project 2025 website as the policy agenda gained controversy. Which Project 2025-Linked Group Had The Biggest Supreme Court Presence? The group with the biggest presence at the Supreme Court was right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. In addition to the two cases in which it was a party, ADF also filed three amicus briefs in its own name in various cases, and its lawyers drafted multiple briefs on behalf of other organizations that hold similar views. The Heritage Foundation was the main organization behind Project 2025. It did not have any involvement in major Supreme Court cases this term, and noted to Forbes that Project 2025 has no connection to anything involving the judiciary branch. The organization directed Forbes to a number of statements the organization put out praising many of the court's rulings this term, however, including on transgender healthcare, Trump's birthright citizenship case, Texas' age verification law, LGBTQ books in schools and Planned Parenthood funding. Contra Project 2025 noted on its website that its opinions 'do not necessarily represent the opinions of every one of its advisory board partners,' and multiple organizations listed as members of the group's advisory board told Forbes they do not consider themselves to be affiliated with Project 2025. Americans United for Life removed its name from Project 2025's website in summer 2024, telling Forbes it is a nonpartisan organization that no longer wished to be affiliated with Project 2025's right-wing aims, and the National Center for Public Policy Research told Forbes it was unexpectedly listed as a member of the advisory board after a staff member attended one meeting in 2023. Mike Farris, general counsel at National Religious Broadcasters, told Forbes he has not read Project 2025 and any affiliation between the group and Project 2025 'came from the action of prior staff members on the legislative team—none of whom are still at NRB.' 'I can say with complete confidence that our amicus briefs had absolutely nothing to do with Project 2025 and any parallel is because members of the conservative movement often have similar views,' Farris told Forbes in an email. Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller, who founded America First Legal, also told ABC News last year he had 'zero involvement with Project 2025,' after America First Legal removed its name from Project 2025's website. Groups who did acknowledge an affiliation with Project 2025 also distanced the project from the Supreme Court's rulings, with Family Policy Alliance CEO Craig DeRoche telling Forbes the court's decisions 'are unequivocal wins for children and parents,' but 'these cases and their corresponding decisions had nothing to do with Project 2025, which was focused on what President Trump would do in his second term.' Do The Supreme Court's Rulings Follow Project 2025's Agenda? Project 2025 is focused solely on actions through the executive branch, and does not discuss any policies that could be enacted through the judicial branch or involve the courts in its plans. But its conservative policy blueprint has a number of places where its policy aims overlap with the Supreme Court's most recent rulings. Project 2025 decries 'woke transgender activism' and describes gender-affirming medical procedures as 'dangerous' and unsupported by medical evidence, a view that conflicts with many medical professionals, but is in line with the bans on gender-affirming care for minors that the Supreme Court upheld. The agenda also places a strong emphasis on parental rights in education, as the court did with its ruling allowing parents to opt children out of objectionable content—with Project 2025's agenda claiming, 'Schools serve parents, not the other way around.' The Supreme Court further supported Project 2025's policy aims by upholding the federal ban on TikTok and greenlighting state bans on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which Project 2025 proposes banning at the federal level. Justices' decision to uphold Texas' age verification law for porn sites, which makes it harder for minors to access obscene content, is also in line with Project 2025, which calls for a ban on pornography and argues it 'has no claim to First Amendment protection'—a stance that goes further than the Supreme Court's opinion. One area where the Supreme Court diverged more with Project 2025 was charter schools, as the court voted not to allow a religious charter school in Oklahoma, while Project 2025 pushes to increase charter schools in the U.S. education system and roll back existing federal regulations over them. Key Background Project 2025 was a multi-faceted project by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups to prepare for the next GOP administration, providing a LinkedIn-style database of potential White House workers, White House employee training materials and a reported playbook for Trump's first few months in office. The group's 900-page policy agenda gained the most attention, proposing a policy blueprint for all major federal agencies that pushed controversial right-wing policies and sought to give the president more power by replacing career civil servants with presidential appointees. While the Heritage Foundation said it has provided similar documents to past Republican presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan, the 2025 plan became embroiled in national controversy ahead of the 2024 election, as Democrats highlighted its proposals as a key reason to oppose Trump. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 ahead of the election and denied having any connection to it, despite it being created by many people who worked with him at the White House in his first term. Since taking office, however, Trump has appointed many people involved with Project 2025 to key roles in his second administration, and many of the president's policies overlap with policy suggestions made in Project 2025. In a March interview with Politico, former Project 2025 head Paul Dans described Trump's agenda in office as being 'actually way beyond my wildest dreams.' 'What we had hoped would happen has happened,' Dans said about Trump's policies reflecting Project 2025's agenda. Forbes Here's How Trump's Executive Orders Align With Project 2025—As Author Hails President's Agenda As 'Beyond My Wildest Dreams' By Alison Durkee Forbes Project 2025 Author Russell Vought Confirmed By Senate: Here Are All The Trump Officials With Ties To Policy Agenda By Alison Durkee Forbes Project 2025 Explained: What To Know About The Right-Wing Policy Map Ahead Of Tonight's VP Debate By Alison Durkee


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Beach bacteria warnings plague Fourth of July weekend plans nationwide
Americans heading to the beach for Independence Day weekend may want to check if the waters are OK for swimming or wading. Warnings of high bacteria levels from public health officials have begun popping up in various states coast to coast. Vibrio is a bacterium that naturally lives in coastal waters, causing fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and cramps, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On the West Coast, California officials in San Diego issued many warnings and closures of popular beaches, noting that some "bacteria levels exceed health standards." Two counties in Long Island, New York, have issued similar advisories. Suffolk County health officials posted, "Benjamin Beach in Bay Shore, Ronkonkoma Beach in the Town of Islip, and Sayville Marina Park Beach in Sayville are closed to bathing due to the finding of bacteria at levels in excess of acceptable criteria." The beaches will reopen when further testing reveals bacteria levels have dropped to acceptable levels, said the press release. Three Nassau County beaches — Hewlett Point, Island Park, and Phillip Healey Beach — are under advisory after heavy rainfall, according to the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDOH). Beaches will reopen when further testing reveals bacteria levels have dropped to acceptable levels. "Stormwater runoff may have impacted water quality at 3 South Shore beaches. As a precaution, NCDOH is advising against swimming at these locations. Stormwater runoff can raise bacteria levels, possibly exceeding NYS standards for safe bathing," said an NCDOH press release. In Massachusetts, nearly 20 beaches were closed as of Wednesday morning. Seventeen beaches are listed on the Massachusetts Department of Health "Beaches Dashboard," due to bacteria levels. Washington state lists advisories to "stay out of the water" at seven beaches with "high bacteria" in King County, according to its website. The Prairie State lists 34 advisories on their Illinois government website. There are 80,000 cases of the infection reported each year, according to the CDC. Michigan has nine beaches closed due to high bacteria levels from "wildlife" and "storm water runoff." Four beaches in the Great Lake State also have contamination advisories.