With a collective experience spanning seven decades in health law—where one of us rendered services to a major pharmaceutical company during the Covid pandemic as an executive, while the other served on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—we are well aware of our areas of competence. We wouldn’t step outside our jurisdiction to interpret the intricacy of vaccine science or to guide patients away from seeking vaccine advice from their healthcare providers. Furthermore, we lean towards staying away from scientific investigations that form the bedrock of immunization policy development.
It’s for this very reason that recent activities around the Covid vaccine by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have ignited an array of concerns. The secretary’s announcement that pregnant women and kids should abstain from Covid-19 vaccination has set off alarms. Such stance emerged merely a week after he warned Congress members about not seeking medical advice from him, a statement we strongly align with.
Kennedy had previously committed during his confirmation hearings that he will not meddle with the already established vaccination schedules. Yet, within just a matter of days, he has swung from refraining to endorse measles vaccination to baselessly trying to adjust the national vaccine timetable for pregnant women, infants, and children.
These demographics represent crucial segments in American society, deemed supremely important to public health and requiring evidence-based decision-making for optimal policy significance. For well over half a century, previous HHS secretaries relied heavily on the guidance provided by the CDC and its ACIP advisory board to correctly assess and recommend national immunization policy directions.
Such trust is so deep-seated that the ACIP, under CDC directives, has been granted the power by Congress to formulate evidence-driven recommendations. These recommendations influence the coverage policies not only of health insurers but are also crucial in directing state Medicaid and CHIP programs when it comes to no-cost sharing of immunization.
The contributions of CDC and ACIP to U.S. immunization policy can’t be overstressed. It’s worth noting that they served as the backbone during the previous two pandemics that threatened this nation in the past 25 years. During these times, ACIP and the CDC were relied upon and trusted by successive Presidential administrations.
As such, any baseless declarations made by the Secretary, bypassing the insights and recommendations from his own expert committee, can be seen as an act of extreme impulsiveness. Moreover, this can prove rather dangerous as such hasty decisions could spur a worrying decline in immunization rates, particularly if insurers begin denying payment for vaccines.
It may indeed be appropriate to reassess the evidence concerning the use of Covid vaccines for pregnant women and children. Perhaps the routine Covid vaccination schedule needs adjustments for these specific demographic groups under regular circumstances.
Nevertheless, the removal of Covid vaccination from the routine immunization schedule for pregnant women and children is a decision of such great consequence that it should not be decided hastily by the HHS secretary. Declaring such alterations without thorough consideration could lead to grave ramifications.
This holds particularly true when the Secretary displays a clear bias against vaccines and the individuals he claims to have sought advice from don’t include the actual scientists legally obligated to oversee vaccination policy.
Thus, we stand in accord: Kennedy’s medical advice should not be heeded by parents or pregnant women, let alone insurers. Given our combined wealth of experience and knowledge in this sector, it is paramount to approach such important health decisions with the right amount of caution and expertise.
Rash actions can lead to damaging repercussions, especially when dealing with an issue as critical as immunization. It is fundamental to rely on the expertise of the right sources when making monumental health decisions, such as altering vaccination schedules or the recipients of a specific vaccine.
Moreover, the integrity of institutions such as the CDC and its ACIP advisory body should not be undermined by personal bias, especially when they have proven their relevance in shaping beneficial immunization policies over the past decades.
In conclusion, everyone, including parents, pregnant women, or insurers, should exercise discretion and lean on credible sources while considering immunization advice, rather than following abrupt declarations that are devoid of any backing from expert committees.