- Recent changes to routine vaccine recommendations have created confusion and uncertainty regarding public health guidance.
- These changes may limit or restrict access to certain vaccines due to a lack of availability or insurance coverage, which could increase costs.
- Clinicians are advised to provide opportunities to discuss the underlying scientific evidence supporting recommended vaccines.
Vaccines are critically important in healthcare, with the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating that vaccinations prevent between 3.5 and 5 million deaths each year. Not only can they prevent infectious disease, but provide herd immunity, reduce healthcare system strain, and are a cost-effective public health tool.
Recent shifts in vaccine policies in the United States have sparked uncertainty among clinicians, public health experts, and families, as long-standing immunization recommendations are revised and, in some cases, reversed.
However, in June 2025, all 17 ACIP members were replaced by the HHS secretary, fundamentally changing the committee’s composition and review process. Since then, the newly appointed committee has withdrawn several vaccine recommendations despite having support from extensive scientific review.
A new perspective article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) comments on these changes and provides guidance for clinicians.
The committee also eliminated the option of using the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine for the first dose in children younger than 3 years. Jim O’Neill, acting director of the CDC, called for separating the vaccine into three separate shots, despite no scientific evidence showing a benefit to doing so.
In December 2025, ACIP replaced its long-standing recommendation for routine hepatitis B vaccination at birth with a “shared clinical decision-making” approach for newborns whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B surface antigen.
In January 2026, HHS officials urged the CDC to remove multiple routine vaccine recommendations for children without holding a public ACIP meeting or consulting with CDC career experts.
The CDC adopted the changes rapidly, relying on an internal assessment that emphasized public trust and international comparisons rather than traditional scientific risk-benefit analysis.
While the CDC states that vaccines recommended as of December 31, 2025, will remain covered by federal programs and private insurance, the revisions are likely to create challenges, reduce vaccine access, and increase confusion and public distrust in vaccination.
Nathan Lo, MD PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Stanford and author of a recent study describing trends in childhood vaccination requirements spoke to Medical News Today.
“The increase in vaccine exemptions suggest further declines in vaccination, which will increase risk of outbreaks of preventable illnesses.”
For families making decisions on vaccinations, he advises that “they should seek out their pediatrician as a trusted source for reliable and accurate information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.”
Informed consent is a crucial process in healthcare and plays an integral role in vaccine counseling. Clinicians must still provide federally mandated vaccine information sheets outlining risks and benefits.
However, experts suggest that labeling some vaccines as “shared clinical decision-making” may unintentionally signal reduced confidence in their value, even though the underlying evidence has not changed.
Research indicates that a presumptive approach may offer an effective strategy for improving vaccine uptake. This refers to a communication style where providers assume people want to vaccinate, framing it as a routine part of care.
Still, clinicians may now encounter more questions or resistance from individuals who have heard that certain vaccines are no longer recommended by the CDC or required for school entry.
Public health experts advise clinicians to provide space for discussion while clearly explaining why they continue to recommend vaccination, emphasizing the consistent evidence and strong support from medical societies.
Some clinicians may worry that deviating from updated ACIP or CDC guidance could expose them to malpractice liability. Other concerns involve the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which provides no-fault compensation for vaccine-related injuries and shields clinicians and manufacturers from most civil lawsuits.
The VICP only applies to vaccines recommended for routine use by the CDC. If that list shrinks, it will cover fewer vaccines, potentially increasing exposure to civil litigation.
However, malpractice claims will require proof of negligence, such as failure to follow relevant medical guidelines. When respected professional organizations issue conflicting recommendations, following any of them can still meet the legal standard of care.
Additionally, clinicians can counter with guidelines from multiple authoritative professional societies, supported by the weight of medical evidence.
As serious vaccine injuries are rare and difficult to prove in court, experts suggest that the overall risk to clinicians is likely to remain low.
Many individuals receive vaccines in pharmacies, but state laws govern which vaccines pharmacists may administer. In some states, pharmacists can only give vaccines recommended by ACIP or the CDC.
As recommendations narrow, states may restrict vaccinations available through pharmacies unless they revise their laws or adopt alternative guidance from medical societies. Some states have already begun creating their own approved vaccine lists to maintain access.
For example, the Northeast Public Health Collaborative, consisting of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York state, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and New York City, announced it will continue following guidance from the AAP.
Experts expect most private insurers to continue covering vaccines supported by specialty societies and other authoritative organizations. This may be likely due to their relatively low cost and strong cost-effectiveness. Some states have also required insurers to cover COVID-19 at no cost.
However, changes to federal programs could have broader consequences. The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D all rely on ACIP recommendations to determine no-cost vaccine coverage. Although federal officials say coverage will remain unchanged for now, those policies could shift in the future.
If coverage were withdrawn, states could choose to pay for vaccines themselves, but doing so would require additional funding and federal approvals.
Public health experts note that the recent changes have created confusion among clinicians and families. While medical societies continue to support routine vaccination based on scientific evidence, uncertainty around federal recommendations, insurance coverage, and payment systems remains.
For now, experts emphasize that clinicians can continue to recommend vaccines with confidence, relying on decades of research and broad professional consensus. The greatest risks may lie not in clinical liability, but in future changes to federal and state payment systems that could limit vaccine access.
