On Wednesday, the head of the Senate health committee openly questioned the reliability of a key federal advisory group on vaccines. Simultaneously, major insurance companies declared they would continue to pay for routine immunizations, regardless of any potential attempts by the panel to restrict their availability.
These twin developments highlight a growing lack of confidence in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a body once highly esteemed for shaping vaccination guidelines for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The ACIP is scheduled to convene later this week to re-evaluate guidelines for critical childhood vaccinations, including those for COVID-19, hepatitis B, and the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) combination. Notably, some newly appointed advisors have publicly voiced skepticism regarding the safety and widespread application of these vaccines.
Dr. Richard Besser, CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former interim director of the CDC, praised the insurers’ stance. “It’s a very positive step that the insurance industry is calling this travesty for what it is, rather than accepting that the current ACIP will be able to protect the health of the patients they are responsible for,” he stated.
This past June, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. controversially replaced all 17 members of the committee with new advisors, many of whom share his expressed doubts about vaccines.
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and the influential chairman of the Senate health committee, warned that any alterations to the established childhood vaccine schedule by the newly appointed panelists should be met with public skepticism.
During a congressional hearing earlier that day, Dr. Susan Monarez, who was dismissed as CDC director in August, testified that Secretary Kennedy had indeed expressed his intention to overhaul the standard childhood immunization guidelines.
Dr. Cassidy, himself a physician and liver specialist, has voiced grave concerns that the advisory body is rapidly losing credibility under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership. He highlighted the dramatic success of newborn hepatitis B vaccination, which reduced annual cases of childhood liver disease from 20,000 to approximately 20.
Despite decades of recommendations from the advisory panel, Secretary Kennedy and some conservative lawmakers have questioned the practice of administering the hepatitis B vaccine to newborns on their first day of life.
Senator Cassidy emphasized that if the panel were to remove the hepatitis B vaccine from the recommended childhood schedule, patients would face significant out-of-pocket costs, likely leading many to forgo the crucial immunization.
“The challenge of this is that insurance won’t cover it, so it becomes a financial hardship,” the Senator explained, acknowledging the difficult choice between a patient’s finances and their health.
However, Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed any suggestions that the advisory committee would revise vaccine recommendations without robust scientific backing.
He affirmed that all decisions would be approved by the interim CDC director, Jim O’Neill, and would be firmly “based on the latest available science.”
Notably, Mr. O’Neill, a former Silicon Valley executive with no prior medical or scientific training, assumed the role after Dr. Monarez’s unexpected dismissal.
AHIP, a prominent trade association representing health insurers, announced that its members would continue to cover vaccines even if the CDC’s recommendations changed. This move was intended to reassure the public, especially those who routinely seek vaccinations for themselves or their children in the autumn.
In a public statement, the insurers declared, “Health plans are committed to maintaining and ensuring affordable access to vaccines.”
The association further clarified, “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 aligns with similar actions taken by several states and medical groups, all expressing readiness to potentially disregard the committee’s future recommendations if they are perceived as lacking scientific basis.
Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, characterized the insurers’ announcement as “a huge vote of no confidence,” suggesting it reflects their strategic interest in preventing costly illnesses by ensuring their customers remain vaccinated.
“No one has done anything like this before,” Frieden added, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the situation.
The insurers, including those operating private Medicare plans, confirmed that they would continue covering vaccines based on the federal committee’s recommendations as they stood on September 1, 2025.
UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest insurer and not an AHIP member, chose not to comment directly on the trade group’s actions but released its own statement affirming its “commitment to enabling access to safe, effective and affordable care, including coverage for vaccinations.”
United advised its customers to review their individual plan details, but indicated that most commercial plans would “continue to cover claims for COVID-19 vaccines and many of the typical school vaccines, such as MMR, tetanus, diphtheria, and polio with no cost share.”
While major insurers are largely expected to maintain coverage, some employers and smaller insurance providers might still opt to follow potentially more restrictive recommendations from the committee.
The insurers’ approach to COVID-19 vaccines will probably align with any revised federal guidance, yet a significant portion of the population should still find their immunizations covered.
Parents, working with their doctors, can still choose to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, with insurers covering the costs and no out-of-pocket expenses.
However, coverage for Medicaid plans, which support low-income individuals through federal and state funds, may vary significantly by state. Children relying on the government’s ‘Vaccines for Children Program’ might face gaps in coverage.
States are increasingly taking independent approaches. Already, state officials in places like New York have issued executive orders to guarantee access to COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, a coalition of Western states has formed a health alliance to develop its own immunization guidelines.
This Western alliance has already published its own recommendations for various respiratory illnesses, with a similar coalition of Northeastern states, including New York, also taking shape.