As Hospital Prices Soar, a Stitch Tops $500 (Published 2013)

RFK Jr. Made Promises About Vaccines. Here's What He's Done As Health Secretary

What happens to health research when 'women' is a banned word? What happens to health research when 'women' is a banned word?

Daniella Fodera got an unusually early morning call from her research adviser this month: The doctoral student's fellowship at Columbia University had been suddenly terminated. 

Fodera sobbed on phone calls with her parents. Between the fellowship application and scientific review process, she had spent a year of her life securing the funding, which helped pay for her study of the biomechanics of uterine fibroids—tissue growths that can cause severe pain, bleeding and even infertility. Uterine fibroids, an underresearched condition, impact up to 77 percent of women as they age.

"I'm afraid of what it means for women's health," Fodera said. "I'm just one puzzle piece in the larger scheme of what is happening. So me alone, canceling my funding will have a small impact—but canceling the funding of many will have a much larger impact. It will stall research that has been stalled for decades already. For me, that's sad and an injustice."

Fodera's work was a casualty of new federal funding cuts at Columbia University, one of several schools targeted by the Trump administration. The administration is also reducing the workforce at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that oversees public health research, while trying to slash NIH funding to universities. 

Researchers say threats to federal research funding and President Donald Trump's promise to eliminate any policy promoting "diversity, equity and inclusion" are threatening a decades-long effort to improve how the nation studies the health of women and queer people, or improve treatments for the medical conditions that affect them, The 19th reports. Agency employees have been warned not to approve grants that include words such as  "women," "trans" or "diversity." 

That could mean halting efforts to improve the nation's understanding of conditions that predominantly affect women, including endometriosis, menopause, infectious diseases contracted in pregnancy and pregnancy-related death. It could also stall research meant to treat conditions such as asthma, heart disease, depression and substance abuse disorders, which have different health implications for women versus men, and also have outsized impacts on LGBTQ+ people and people of color—often underresearched patients.

"I want every generation to be healthier than the last, and I'm worried we may have some real setbacks," said Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor and clinician at Johns Hopkins University who studies the consequences of pregnancy-related infections and the causes of birth defects.

The United States already lagged in promoting scientific inquiry that considered how sex and gender can influence health—and has a recent history of focusing research on White men. Less than 50 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actively discouraged researchers from including women who could become pregnant in clinical trials for new medical products, leaving it often unclear if U.S.-based therapeutics were safe for them. It wasn't until 1993 that clinical trials were legally required to include women and "individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds."

Around that same time, the federal government launched offices within the NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA that focused on women's health and research. Since then, efforts to consider gender in medical research have progressed, if unevenly. A report last fall from the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine found that in the past decade, the level of federal funding devoted to women's health had actually declined relative to the rest of the NIH's budget. 

The report, requested by Congress, also found that researchers still struggled to understand the implications of common conditions such as endometriosis and uterine fibroids, the long-term implications of pregnancy, or gender gaps in mental health conditions—all areas where Black women in particular experience worse health outcomes or face heightened barriers to appropriate treatment. Investments had stalled in looking at how sex and gender interact with race or class in influencing people's health outcomes. 

The report ultimately called for an additional $15.8 billion over the next five years to address the gaps. Now, efforts to cut federal research funding and limit its acknowledgment of gender could thwart forward momentum.

"If we are banning this study of these issues, or deciding we're not going to invest in that work, it freezes progress," said Alina Salganicoff, a lead author on the report and vice president for women's health at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization.

Already, researchers whose work touches on sex or gender are anticipating losses in federal funding, which they fear could imperil their work moving forward. Some have already had their grants terminated. Many specified that they were not speaking as representatives of their employers. 

Whitney Wharton, a cognitive neuroscientist at Emory University, learned on Feb. 28 that she would no longer receive federal funding for her multiyear study looking at effective caregiving models for LGBTQ+ seniors at risk of developing Alzheimer's. Research suggests that queer adults may be at greater risk of age-related cognitive decline, but they are far less likely to be the subject of research.  

Wharton is one of numerous scientists across the country whose work was terminated because it included trans people, per letters those researchers received from the NIH. "Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans," the letter said. 

Though Wharton's work focused on queer adults, it proposed caregiving models that could apply to other people often without family support structures who are at heightened risk for Alzheimer's as they age.

"The sexual and gender minority community is more likely to age alone in place. We're less likely to be married or have children," Wharton said. "These additional roadblocks are not only unnecessary but they are unnecessarily cruel to a community that's already facing a lot of hardship."

One of Wharton's collaborators on the study is Jace Flatt, an associate professor of health and behavioral sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who also received separate notice from the NIH that their research beyond the study had been terminated. Flatt studies LGBTQ+ people and their risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, as well as thinking about their needs for care.

Flatt said NIH funding for three of their studies have been canceled in recent weeks, as well as a Department of Defense-funded grant looking at veterans' health that included LGBTQ+ people. The defense letter stated the research did not align with Trump's executive order that recognizes only two sexes, male and female.

Flatt estimates about $4.5 million in federal funding was cut from their research, requiring some staff layoffs. 

"I made a personal commitment to do this work. Now I'm being told, 'Your research doesn't benefit all Americans, and it's unscientific,' and basically that I'm promoting inaccurate research and findings. The tone comes across as like it's harmful to society," they said. "I'm a public health practitioner. I'm about improving the health and quality of life of all people." 

Jill Becker, a neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, uses rodent studies to better understand how sex differences can affect people's responses to drug addiction and treatment. Her work has helped suggest that some forms of support and treatment can be more effective for male rats and others for female ones—a divide she hopes to interrogate to help develop appropriate treatments for people who are in recovery for substance use disorder, and, in particular, better treatment for cisgender men.   

Becker's studies were singled out in a Senate hearing by Rand Paul, a Republican, who characterized it as the type of wasteful research that shouldn't continue. Because she looks at sex differences, she anticipates that when her NIH funding finishes at the end of the year, the agency will no longer support her—a development that could eventually force her lab and others doing similar work to shut down entirely.

"If we no longer include women or females in our research, we're obviously going to go back to not having answers that are going to be applicable to both sexes," she said. "And I think that's a big step backward."

Scott Olson // Getty Images Government shuts down research it doesn't understand

The NIH did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

In interviews with The 19th, academics broadly described a sense of widespread uncertainty. Beyond federal funding, many are unsure if they will still be able to use the government-operated databases they have relied on to conduct comprehensive research. Others said the NIH representatives they typically work with have left the organization. Virtually all said their younger colleagues are reconsidering whether to continue health research, or whether a different career path could offer more stability. 

But the Trump administration has remained steadfast. In his recent joint address to Congress, Trump praised efforts to cut "appalling waste," singling out "$8 million to make mice transgender"—a framing that misrepresented studies involving asthma and breast cancer. 

The government's rhetoric is now deterring some scholars from certain areas of study, even when they recognize a public health benefit. One North Carolina-based psychologist who studies perinatal mental health and hormone therapy for menopausal people said her team had considered expanding their research to look at that treatment's mental health implications for trans people. 

"It's important, and I don't have any way of doing that work at the moment," said the psychologist, who asked that her name be withheld from publication because she fears publicly criticizing the NIH could jeopardize research funding. "There is potential for that line of research in the future, but not in this funding environment."

The concerns spread beyond those who receive government funding. Katy Kozhimannil, a public health professor at the University of Minnesota, doesn't receive NIH support for her research on pregnancy-related health and access to obstetrics care in rural areas. Her work has looked at perinatal health care for Native Americans, including examining intimate partner violence as a risk factor for pregnancy-related death. The findings, she hopes, could be used to help develop policy addressing the fact that Native American and Alaska Native people are more likely to die during pregnancy than White people. 

But future studies may not be possible, she fears, because of an interruption in data collection to PRAMS, a comprehensive federal database with detailed information about Americans' pregnancy-related health outcomes. Within the first weeks of the new administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly told state health departments to stop collecting data to maintain the system, while saying that it will be brought back online once it is in compliance with the new government diversity policies.

Kozhimannil and other scholars in her field are worried about what that means—and whether PRAMS will continue to publish information showing outcomes by race or geography. Those would be  tremendous omissions: A vast body of data shows that in the United States, Black and American Indian women are at elevated risk of dying because of pregnancy. People in rural areas face greater barriers to reproductive health care than those in urban ones. Without the  information PRAMS is known for, Kozhimannil said, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct research that could address those divides. 

It's not clear if or when that information will be available, she added. One of her doctoral students requested access to PRAMS data in January and has still not heard back on whether it will be made available to her—a delay that is "not normal," Kozhimannil said.

"It's hard to imagine getting toward a future where fewer moms die giving birth in this country, because the tools we had to imagine that are not available," she said. "I'm a creative person and I've been doing this a while, and I care a lot about it. But it's pushing the boundaries of my creativity and my innovation as a researcher when some of the basic tools are not there."

Paul Prince, a spokesperson for the CDC, acknowledged "some schedule adjustments" to PRAMS to comply with Trump's executive orders, but claimed it does not affect the program's continuation. He added: "PRAMS was not shut down."

"PRAMS remains operational and continues its mission—identifying issues impacting high-risk mothers and infants, tracking health trends, and measuring progress toward improving maternal and infant health," he said in an email.

Scott Olson // Getty Images Trump puts the brakes on funding of women's health research initiatives that had bipartisan support

It's unclear the scope of long-term ramifications to health research, but Kathryn "Katie" Schubert is tracking it closely. She is the president and CEO of the Society for Women's Health Research, an organization that has advocated on decades of congressional policy. In 2005, the group released a report that found just 3 percent of grants awarded by NIH took sex differences into consideration.

In February, her organization and other groups sent a letter to the administration highlighting the need to continue prioritizing women's health research.

"We have gotten to the point where we know what the problems are. We know where we would like to try to solve for—so how are we going to find these solutions, and what's the action plan?" she told The 19th.

In the past, Trump has shown a willingness to address women's health inequity in at least in some arenas. A 2016 law, signed by former President Barack Obama, established a committee on how to better incorporate pregnant and lactating people into clinical trials. Trump continued that work under his first administration.

Still, when pharmaceutical companies began developing vaccines against COVID-19 in 2020, they at first did not include pregnant or breastfeeding people in clinical trials, despite federal policy encouraging them to do so and data showing that pregnant people were at higher risk of complications from the virus. Those same vaccine trials also initially excluded people who were HIV positive—a policy with particular ramifications for trans people, who are living with HIV at a higher rate than cisgender people—and only changed their policy after public outcry.

Trump returned to power on the heels of a renowned federal focus on women's health research and gender equity. In 2023, President Joe Biden announced the first-ever White House Initiative on Women's Health Research to address chronic underfunding.

During his final State of the Union address, Biden called on Congress to invest $12 billion in new funding for women's health research. He followed that with an executive order directing federal agencies to expand and improve related research efforts.

In December, former First Lady Jill Biden led a conference at the White House where she highlighted nearly $1 billion in funding committed over the past year toward women's health research. She told a room that included researchers: "Today isn't the finish line; it's the starting point. We—all of us—we have built the momentum. Now it's up to us to make it unstoppable."

The Trump administration rescinded the council that oversaw the research initiative. The press office for the Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Schubert said prioritizing women's health has bipartisan support, and she remains hopeful of its popularity across both sides of the aisle. She also recognizes it could mean a new era of investment sources.

"We'll continue as an organization, of course, with our partners, to work to fulfill our mission and to advocate for that federal investment and to make sure that the workforce is there and make that policy change. We'll do that under the best of times and the worst of times," she said. "But I think when we think about sort of the broader community—we've seen other philanthropic organizations come in and say, 'OK, we're ready to partner and really make this investment on the private side.'"

Women's health research has more visibility than ever, and not just because some high-profile celebrities and media personalities are investing time and money toward addressing it. Social media algorithms are also increasingly targeting messaging around women's health and wellness. Economists estimate that investing $350 million in research that focuses on women could yield $14 billion in economic returns.

"Yes, we are in a very difficult time when it comes to the federal budget," Schubert said. "Even in spite of that, there will be opportunities to see this issue continue to rise to the top."

The speed and scope of those opportunities may not extend to researchers like Flatt in Nevada. They plan to appeal their NIH funding cuts, but they don't feel optimistic—in part because the letters state that no modifications of their projects will change the agency's decision.

Flatt noted that in recent weeks, some people have suggested that they exclude transgender people from their studies. Flatt said excluding people of all genders is not pro-science.

 "I refuse to do that," they said. "The administration is saying that it needs to be for all Americans. They are Americans."

Fodera, the Columbia doctoral student, will continue her research on uterine fibroids for now, due partly to timing and luck: The fellowship had already paid out her stipend for the semester, and her adviser pooled some money together from another source.

But the future of her fellowship is in question, and such research opportunities are closing elsewhere. Fodera is expected to graduate in a few months, and plans to continue in academia with the goal of becoming a professor. She's looking for a postdoctoral position, and is now considering opportunities outside of the United States.

"This is really going to hurt science overall," she said. "There is going to be a brain drain from the U.S."

This story was produced by The 19th and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

LEX WROBLEWSKI // AFP via Getty Images Retirement, interrupted: Why those over 55 are a fast-growing segment of the workforce Retirement, interrupted: Why those over 55 are a fast-growing segment of the workforce

Joan Madden-Ceballos, a 65-year-old health care administrator, has a working life in California many would envy. Her work is flexible, fulfilling, and something she enjoys going back to day after day. "I'm a baby boomer, so work is sort of ingrained in our lives," she told Vox.

While it may sound unusual for some to work past what many consider the "golden years" of retirement, Madden-Ceballos is among the increasing number of Americans who have stuck around the workforce longer as they age, according to federal data. Per 2023 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1 in 5 workers are 55 or older. Three in 20 working Americans are aged 55 to 64, while roughly 7 in 100 are older than 64.

From 2003 to 2023, there was a sizable jump in people 55 and older still in the workforce—nearly a 74% increase—but there were also profound jumps in those working who are 65 and older. The number of workers aged 65 to 74 jumped 139%, and those 75 and older increased by 113%.

Health Centers Near Me explored data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine why the aging workforce in the United States is working past the typical retirement age.

insta_photos // Shutterstock With longer lives and better health, seniors are choosing to work

There are a few reasons why many seniors are choosing to work past their retirement age.

Older Americans today are living longer and maintaining their physical independence longer. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, the average 65-year-old was expected to live another 18.9 years in 2022, compared to just 17.6 years in 2000. A 2023 study of 5.4 million older Americans published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health also found that across 10 years, the number of people 65 and over with functional limitations had decreased significantly.

Work may be a way to stay active in society for some older Americans. Workers aged 50 and older told researchers their jobs have had a positive effect on their physical and mental health, according to the 2024 University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging. Nearly half said that work gave them a sense of purpose and kept their brains sharp. This reality is even more consistent for workers aged 65 and older, with 9 in 10 saying that working helped their overall well-being.

The nature of jobs has also changed. Nicole Maestas, professor of economics and health care policy at the Harvard Medical School, noted that "many people have less physically demanding jobs in today's information economy, so for some, it is easier to continue working."

A survey of 2,000 individuals aged 50 to 79 published by the National Bureau of Economic Research also found that job characteristics affect people's decision to retire. According to researchers, nearly a third would likely keep working past 70 if their job offered flexible hours compared to just a sixth without that option. Job stress, the physical and mental demands of the job, telecommuting options, or commuting times were other factors that played into that decision.

Still, a sense of purpose and job characteristics are only part of the picture. When asked why workers aged 50 and older might keep working, the top reasons the University of Michigan poll respondents gave were related to finances. Nearly 4 in 5 (78%) workers said financial stability is what keeps them clocking in, followed by saving for retirement and access to health insurance.

Health Centers Near Me Some older Americans can't afford to stop working

On multiple surveys, people reported a bleak savings picture and perspective on retirement. For a 2024 AARP survey, 2 in 3 adults older than 50 reported not having enough savings to be "financially secure" in retirement. In 2023, 2 in 5 respondents told Gallup they expected "to live comfortably in retirement," down from 3 in 5 in 2002.

Numerous factors could be driving this sentiment.

People could be working longer because a dollar does not stretch as far as it used to. Wages have stagnated, while the cost of goods, measured by the Consumer Price Index, has steadily increased. Renting or buying a home costs thousands of dollars more today than decades ago. Gen Z dollars could buy only about 86% of what baby boomers could in their 20s, according to Consumer Affairs.

A few decades ago, pensions were also more common. Employers managed the money for their employees' pensions, known as defined benefits plans, and paid employees for life after retirement. It was a guaranteed income benefit that typically started at a specific age, like 62, incentivizing older workers to plan for retirement. Benefit pensions became less common because of the unpredictable cost to employers.

Why older Americans are working longer

By the 1980s, defined contribution plans like 401(k)s became more widespread. These plans typically lack age-specific requirements, found Courtney Coile, a researcher in the economics of aging and health at Wellesley College, leading to a six-month increase in the average retirement age. A quarter of those return to work within six years in part- or full-time jobs.

Researchers from the Georgetown Center for Retirement Initiatives also found that while current estimates use older generations with pensions as a basis for forecasts, newer retirees tended to draw down their savings at much faster rates, fueled in part because of longer life expectancies that increased the need for more funds to pay for health care and long-term necessities. Consequently, new retirees may exhaust their 401(k) assets by 85 years of age, likely outliving their savings.

Some older Americans may not even have enough to begin with. The Government Accountability Office found in 2024 that half of households did not have any retirement savings as of 2022, and a third of households with a worker 55 or older did not have any retirement or defined benefit plan set by an employer to fall back on.

People may be working longer to delay pulling Social Security benefits, even increasing their monthly payments. Yet the existing financial safety net for older Americans is fraying. Social Security may run out of money in less than a decade. The additional source of income for older workers, driven by a lifetime of workers' wages, is projected to be insolvent by 2033 without congressional action, stated the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds in its 2024 annual report. Social Security and Medicare alone are insufficient for people to make ends meet. Half of older adults living alone, as well as 1 in 5 older couples, "lack the financial resources required to pay for basic needs," according to a 2022 study led by three gerontologists from the University of Massachusetts Boston.

"There's a myth that Social Security and Medicare miraculously take care of all of people's needs in older age," Ramsey Alwin, president and chief executive of the National Council on Aging, told KFF Health News. "The reality is they don't, and far too many people are one crisis away from economic insecurity."

Health Centers Near Me What can be done better?

Several reforms need to happen to help older Americans—and the nation—prepare for the future as aging workers participate more in the economy.

Scholars from the AARP Public Policy Institute, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Brookings Institution are proponents of workers setting up dedicated emergency accounts that separate one's emergency savings from general savings, making it less likely to be spent for other needs. They also suggest that states explore putting employees into automatic individual retirement accounts unless they already have retirement plans. Vermont and 17 other states are already considering implementing these auto-IRAs, according to Time. They are also encouraging the government to explore ways to make it easier for employees to move their retirement balances from one plan to another, making their hard-won savings less likely to be abandoned or forgotten.

Employers can also take some proactive steps, knowing that older Americans will only be more present in the workplace. Employers can promote skills training for everyone, allow flexible work options, give workers a say in their schedules and work locations, and create an ergonomic workplace that addresses hazards more commonly faced by older workers, who may be more adversely affected by slips and trips. These changes may also benefit all generations in the workplace.

Strengthening financial security for an aging workforce

Leaders can also push back on harmful myths that affect older workers like their supposed opposition to change or decreased productivity. AARP research has found that almost 13 in 20 workers aged 50 and older reported seeing or experiencing age discrimination in the workplace.

Finally, older employees who may not have enough money can try to improve their retirement outlook with a handful of strategies, CNBC reported. The first step is to calculate how much they might actually need for retirement rather than guessing. The Elder Index, developed by the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston, is a tool that can help older workers pinpoint how much they need.

Some workers may also consider shifting to part-time work before retiring fully.

Workers should also take advantage of IRS tax incentives aimed at helping workers save for the future. The Saver's Credit could provide up to 50% of one's contribution based on a filer's adjusted gross income. There are also catch-up contributions workers aged 50 and older can make to add to their retirement savings beyond the plan type or IRA contribution limit.

By 2040, people 65 and older are expected to comprise nearly a quarter of the nation's population, according to the Administration for Community Living, an operating division of the Department of Health and Human Services. As the nation ages, the country will increasingly depend on older workers to fuel the country's economic activity. It would be ideal to have a working future, like Star Bradbury, the Gainesville, Florida-based author of "Successfully Navigating Your Parents' Senior Years."

"I know for myself that I am happier when I am working and happier when I am helping other people," Bradbury told the Mainstreet Daily News. She said that, at 75 years old, her job as an author and senior living strategist gave her "a sense of purpose and don't mind earning a little extra money. All those things add up to keep me working."

Story editing by Carren Jao. Copy editing by Sofía Jarrín. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.

This story originally appeared on Health Centers Near Me and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

BearFotos // Shutterstock

All Childhood Vaccines In Question After First Meeting Of RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Panel

A federal vaccine panel entirely hand-selected by health secretary and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Gathered for its first meeting Wednesday—and immediately announced that it would re-evaluate the entire childhood vaccination schedule, as well as the one for adults.

The meeting overall was packed with anti-vaccine talking points and arguments from the new panel members, confirming public health experts' fears that the once-revered panel is now critically corrupted and that Kennedy's controversial picks will only work to fulfill his long-standing anti-vaccine agenda.

An hour before the meeting began, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out swinging against the new panel, saying that the panel's work is "no longer a credible process." The organization shunned the meeting, refusing to send a liaison to the panel's meeting, which it has done for decades.

"We won't lend our name or our expertise to a system that is being politicized at the expense of children's health," AAP President Susan Kressly said in a video posted on social media.

The panel in question, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), has for more than 60 years provided rigorous public scientific review, discussion, and trusted recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how vaccines should be used in the US after they've earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The CDC typically adopts ACIP's recommendations, and once that happens, insurance providers are required to cover the cost of the recommended shots.

The system is highly regarded globally. But, on June 9, Kennedy unilaterally and summarily fired all 17 esteemed ACIP members and, two days later, replaced them with eight new people. Some have clear anti-vaccine views, others have controversial and contrarian public health views, and several have little to no expertise in the fields relevant to vaccines.

Last night, it came to light that one of the eight new appointees—Michael Ross, an obstetrics and gynecology physician—had withdrawn from the committee during a financial holdings review that ACIP members are required to complete before beginning work on the panel.

Confused By Changes In COVID And Other Vaccine Policies? Here's What You Should Know.

At its first meeting this week, the new advisory committee announced it would review immunization schedules for children, potentially upsetting long-standing recommendations. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, earlier said he was ending the government's recommendation that healthy children get the COVID vaccine.

Today, many people are confused about whether and when to get vaccines for themselves and their families.

Here's what you need to know:

Are vaccines safe?

Vaccines are "very safe," according to the World Health Organization, an agency within the United Nations. "Like any medicine, vaccines can cause side effects. However, these are usually very minor and in short duration, such as a sore arm or a mild fever." (The U.S. Is in the process of withdrawing from the WHO, per President Trump's executive order. He says the WHO "mishandled" the pandemic and chronically overcharges the United States in fees.)

What's the history of vaccines?

Vaccines date back hundreds of years. In 1955, Congress passed the Polio Vaccination Assistance Act, the first federal involvement in immunization activities. It allowed Congress to allocate funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, to help states and local communities acquire and administer vaccines.

What do American specialists in public health say about vaccine safety?

The CDC says childhood vaccines "are very safe." The U.S., the agency says, "has the safest vaccine supply in its history. Millions of children safely receive vaccines each year. The most common side effects are very mild, such as pain or swelling at the injection site."

What do medical experts say about vaccines?

Numerous respected medical centers, including Mass. General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic, cite the safety and importance of vaccines in preventing serious illnesses.

Are vaccines mandatory?

Massachusetts requires certain vaccines, including polio, hepatitis B, and MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), for public school attendance. Local school districts are responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements. Some hospitals and clinics ask their staff to get vaccinated against certain diseases, sometimes in response to state laws and rules.

What changes has the new Trump administration made on vaccines?

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended that anyone six months and older should get the COVID vaccine. But Kennedy in May announced the CDC would no longer recommend it for healthy children, an abrupt change in policy apparently made without consulting the CDC. A couple days later, however, in an update on its website, the CDC modified that recommendation, saying, "Parents of children ages 6 months to 17 years should discuss the benefits of vaccination with a health care provider."

Any other changes regarding COVID vaccines?

Kennedy also announced a proposal to no longer recommend the COVID vaccine for healthy pregnant women.

Are COVID vaccinations still necessary?

The CDC says it's really important to stay up to date on COVID vaccines. COVID, now in its sixth year, constantly mutates, making it necessary to modify vaccines to maintain effectiveness, much like flu vaccines. The original vaccines have been updated every year since 2022. CDC recommends the current vaccine, which it refers to as the "2024-2025 COVID vaccine," for most adults 18 and older, including people who have received a COVID vaccine, people who have had COVID, and people with long COVID.

How serious is COVID?

The COVID pandemic ranks as one of the deadliest disasters in the country's history. The U.S. Has had more than 100 million cases of COVID and more than 1 million deaths.

Are COVID shots free?

Yes, the COVID vaccine is available at no cost through most insurance plans, including Medicare Part B. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendation of a vaccine is key to the costs being covered by insurance companies. That's one of the main reasons the advisory committee is so important. Its approvals also factor into decisions by state authorities on which vaccines to mandate for school-aged children.

How do I get the COVID vaccine?

Contact your doctor, pharmacist, or community health center, or visit their websites.

What groups are most at risk for COVID?

Older adults are at the highest risk of getting very sick from COVID-19, with more than 80 percent of COVID deaths occurring in people over 65. Anyone with obesity, diabetes, asthma, or chronic lung disease, sickle cell disease or who are immunocompromised can also be at increased risk for getting very sick from COVID. The list of risky conditions that may make you more vulnerable to COVID is wide-ranging, including mental health conditions.

What other vaccines are recommended?

In addition to the COVID vaccine, the CDC says all adults should get an annual flu shot, and either the Tdap vaccine (tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough) or TD vaccine (tetanus and diphtheria).

What about RSV?

RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) is a common respiratory virus that typically causes mild symptoms, but sometimes can lead to severe difficulty breathing, especially in babies and older adults. The CDC recommends vaccines for all adults ages 75 and older and adults ages 60 to 74 who have chronic lung or heart disease or weakened immune systems, or live in long-term care facilities. The CDC also recommends a maternal RSV vaccine given during pregnancy or an RSV antibody given to infants after birth.

Pneumonia?

The CDC recommends pneumococcal vaccination for children younger than 5 years, adults 50 years, or older and people with certain risk conditions. Pneumococcal can lead to pneumonia, meningitis, and other conditions.

Shingles?

The CDC recommends the vaccine (two doses) for anyone age 50 and older or age 19 or older with compromised immunity systems.

What about childhood vaccinations?

The CDC says vaccination is one of the best ways parents can protect infants, children, and teens from chickenpox, COVID, diphtheria, flu, hepatitis, HPV, measles, meningococcal, mumps, polio, pneumococcal, rotavirus, RSV, rubella, tetanus, and whooping cough.

Got a problem? Send your consumer issue to sean.Murphy@globe.Com. Follow him @spmurphyboston.

---