On Wednesday, the chairman of the Senate health committee openly questioned the reliability of a federal advisory panel on vaccines. Simultaneously, leading insurance companies announced their intention to maintain coverage for routine immunizations, even if the panel were to propose limitations.
These events highlight a rapidly increasing skepticism toward the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a body once widely respected for shaping vaccination policy recommendations for the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The ACIP is scheduled to convene on Thursday and Friday to evaluate guidelines for several critical childhood vaccines, including those for COVID-19, hepatitis B, and measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella. Notably, some members of this advisory group have previously voiced concerns regarding the safety and widespread application of these vaccines.
Dr. Richard Besser, CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting CDC director, praised the insurers’ stance. He stated, ‘It’s a very positive step that the insurance industry is calling this travesty for what it is, rather than accepting the current ACIP will be able to protect the health of the patients they are responsible for.’
In June, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 members of the committee, appointing new advisors, many of whom share his publicly expressed skepticism about vaccines.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate health committee, warned that any alterations to the childhood vaccine schedule proposed by the newly appointed panelists should not be trusted by the American public.
Earlier that day, at a Congressional hearing, Susan Monarez, who was dismissed as CDC director in August, testified to senators that Secretary Kennedy had expressed his intent to modify the standard childhood vaccination guidelines.
Senator Cassidy, himself a physician and liver specialist, has openly voiced concerns that the ACIP is losing its credibility under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership. He highlighted that widespread hepatitis B vaccination among newborns had dramatically reduced annual cases of liver disease in children from 20,000 to approximately 20.
Despite decades of recommendations from the advisory panel, Secretary Kennedy and certain conservative politicians have questioned the practice of vaccinating infants against hepatitis B on their birth day.
Senator Cassidy cautioned that if the ACIP were to remove the hepatitis B shot from the recommended childhood schedule, patients would face out-of-pocket costs, leading many to forgo the vaccination.
He elaborated, stating, ‘The challenge of this is that insurance won’t cover it, so it becomes a financial hardship,’ and emphasized the need to ‘always balance the patient’s pocketbook with their health.’
However, Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed concerns that the advisory committee would revise vaccine recommendations without robust scientific backing.
Nixon affirmed that any decisions would be ratified by the acting CDC Director, Jim O’Neill, and would ‘be based on the latest available science.’
It’s worth noting that Mr. O’Neill, who took over after Dr. Monarez’s dismissal, is a former Silicon Valley executive with no medical or scientific background.
In a significant move, AHIP, a leading health insurance trade group, announced that its members would continue to cover vaccines regardless of CDC recommendations. This statement aimed to reassure individuals and parents who typically seek immunizations in the autumn.
The insurers collectively declared, ‘Health plans are committed to maintaining and ensuring affordable access to vaccines.’
The association further emphasized, ‘While health plans continue to operate in an environment shaped by federal and state laws, as well as program and customer requirements, the evidence-based approach to coverage of immunizations will remain consistent.’
This decision by insurers mirrors a trend among various states and medical organizations, who are considering disregarding the committee’s guidance due to doubts about its scientific basis.
Tom Frieden, another former CDC director, described the insurers’ announcement as ‘a huge vote of no confidence.’ He suggested it underscores the insurance industry’s interest in preventing illness and associated costs through widespread vaccination among their clientele.
Frieden added, ‘No one has done anything like this before.’
Insurers, including those managing private Medicare plans, confirmed their commitment to covering vaccines recommended by the federal committee as of September 1, 2025.
UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest insurer and not an AHIP member, refrained from commenting on the trade group’s collective action. Instead, they released their own statement, affirming their dedication to ‘enabling access to safe, effective and affordable care, including coverage for vaccinations.’
United advised its policyholders to review their specific plans, but indicated that commercial plans generally ‘continue to cover claims for COVID-19 vaccines and many of the typical school vaccines, such as M.M.R., tetanus, diphtheria and polio with no cost share.’
While major insurers are largely expected to maintain current coverage, some individual employers and smaller insurance providers might still align their decisions with the committee’s potentially more restrictive new recommendations.
The insurers’ approach to COVID-19 vaccines will likely adapt to any revised federal guidance, though broad coverage for immunizations is anticipated to continue for many.
Parents, in consultation with their doctors, can still choose to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, with insurers expected to cover these costs without imposing out-of-pocket expenses.
However, Medicaid plans, which support low-income individuals through federal and state funding, may introduce varied requirements across states. Coverage for children reliant on the government’s Vaccines for Children Program could also be impacted.
States are increasingly pursuing independent approaches. Recommendations already differ significantly, with officials in New York and other regions issuing executive orders to guarantee access to COVID-19 vaccines. A coalition of Western states has also formed a health alliance to develop its own vaccination guidelines.
This Western alliance has already published recommendations for numerous respiratory illnesses, and a similar alliance has been established by Northeastern states, including New York.