On Wednesday, the chairman of the Senate health committee openly questioned the reliability of a federal advisory panel overseeing vaccines. Simultaneously, major insurance providers declared their intention to continue covering routine vaccinations, even if the panel were to suggest limiting their use.
These events highlight a rapidly increasing lack of confidence in what was once a highly esteemed scientific body: the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee traditionally advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director on vaccine policy.
The ACIP is scheduled for a two-day meeting on Thursday and Friday to re-evaluate its recommendations for three key childhood vaccines: COVID-19, hepatitis B, and the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) combination. Notably, some current advisors have publicly voiced concerns regarding the safety and widespread administration 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. 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 A.C.I.P. will be able to protect the health of the patients they are responsible for.”
In a controversial move in June, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. replaced all 17 members of the committee with new advisors. Many of these new appointees, much like the Secretary himself, have previously expressed skepticism regarding vaccines.
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate health committee, stated on Wednesday that any alterations to the childhood vaccine schedule made by the newly appointed committee members should not inspire public confidence.
Earlier that day, during a Congressional hearing, Susan Monarez, who was dismissed as CDC director in August, informed senators that Secretary Kennedy had indicated his intent to modify the standard childhood vaccination schedule.
As a physician and liver specialist, Senator Cassidy has publicly voiced concerns that the advisory body is losing its credibility under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership. He highlighted that newborn vaccination against hepatitis B has drastically reduced childhood liver disease cases from 20,000 annually to approximately 20.
Despite the advisory panel’s decades-long recommendation for the hepatitis B shot, Secretary Kennedy and certain conservative politicians have questioned the practice of vaccinating newborns on their birth day.
Senator Cassidy warned that if the hepatitis B shot were removed from the recommended childhood vaccines, patients would be forced to pay for it themselves, leading many to forgo the immunization.
The senator emphasized, “The challenge of this is that insurance won’t cover it, so it becomes a financial hardship. You always have to balance the patient’s pocketbook with their health.”
Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, refuted the notion that the advisory committee would alter vaccine recommendations without robust scientific evidence.
He assured that any decisions would be approved by the interim CDC director, Jim O’Neill, and would “be based on the latest available science.”
Notably, Mr. O’Neill, a former Silicon Valley executive with no medical or scientific background, was appointed after Dr. Monarez’s dismissal.
In a move to reassure the public who typically seek vaccinations in the fall, AHIP, a prominent health insurance trade group, announced that its members would continue to cover vaccines, even if the CDC’s recommendations were to change.
The insurers’ statement affirmed their commitment: “Health plans are committed to maintaining and ensuring affordable access to vaccines.”
The association further clarified that “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 similar actions taken by various states and medical organizations, all indicating a potential disregard for the committee’s recommendations due to concerns about their evidence-based nature.
Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, characterized the insurers’ announcement as “a huge vote of no confidence,” suggesting it stems from a pragmatic desire to prevent costly illnesses by ensuring their customers remain vaccinated.
He emphasized, “No one has done anything like this before.”
The insurance companies, including those managing private Medicare plans, confirmed they would uphold coverage for all vaccines recommended by the federal committee as of September 1, 2025.
UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest insurer and not part of AHIP, refrained from commenting directly on the trade group’s actions but released its own statement asserting a commitment “to enabling access to safe, effective and affordable care, including coverage for vaccinations.”
United advised its customers to review their individual plans, but indicated that most commercial plans would “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 largely plan to maintain coverage, there remains a possibility that some employers and smaller insurance providers might align their policies with any more restrictive recommendations from the committee.
The insurers’ approach to COVID-19 vaccines is expected to adapt to evolving federal guidance, yet a significant portion of the population should still see their immunizations covered.
Parents, in collaboration with their doctors, can opt for their children to receive COVID-19 vaccinations, with insurers covering the costs and imposing no out-of-pocket expenses.
Medicaid plans, serving low-income individuals through federal and state funding, may exhibit considerable variation in requirements across states. Children enrolled in the government’s Vaccines for Children Program, in particular, might face coverage uncertainties.
States, too, are increasingly adopting independent approaches. Their vaccine recommendations already differ significantly, with officials in New York and other states issuing executive orders to guarantee access to COVID-19 vaccines. Furthermore, a coalition of Western states has formed a health alliance to develop its own vaccination guidelines.
This alliance has already published its own set of recommendations for various respiratory illnesses. Similarly, a separate alliance comprising Northeastern states, including New York, has been established.