CDC consultant votes to show patients must consult with health care providers for COVID-19 vaccination, but no prescription required

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine adviser voted unanimously on Friday to pass a broad range of recommendations for Covid-19-19-19 vaccines to say that those who want one person wants must consult a healthcare provider, a process called shared clinical decision making.

However, regarding whether prescriptions for COVID-19 vaccines are recommended, an advisory committee on immunization practices was assigned. That vote was 6-6; the committee chairman Dr. Martin Kulldorff voted to break the tie.

The committee now says people aged 65 and older should decide whether to get the Covid-19-19 vaccine with a doctor or other healthcare provider. Vaccine consultants should be the same for people aged 6 months to 64, but “emphasizing that the risk benefits of vaccination are most favorable for increased risk of suffering from severe Covid-19 disease and increased risk for those not at risk and lowest for those not at risk, but the risk of CDC lists the risk list of CDC.”

The suggestion is not final and may still change. They went to Jim O’Neill, acting CDC director, for Signoff. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Dorit Reiss, Ph.D., a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, said that shared clinical decisions mean two things.

Reiss posted on social media: “It’s an opt-in rather than an exit: Doctors should initiate, not all.” “It usually results in a smaller intake, partly because no one determines what it requires.

“This creates serious confusion and reduces absorption due to confusion,” Reiss also told CNN.

Other experts agree that the move will make Covid vaccines more difficult to obtain.

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis said clinical decisions are required to “assume health care and insurance”.

He added: “We don’t have universal health care in this country and we know millions of people are losing insurance.”

Enhance informed consent

In another vote, the Commission recommended that the CDC modify its COVID-19 vaccine information statement, which sheds light on the risks and benefits of vaccination.

The consultants hoped to use other language in statements about the “at least six new risks and uncertainties” discussed by the Working Group, many of which were based on preliminary and refuted scientific discoveries.

Legal experts point out that changing the vaccine information statement is beyond ACIP’s permission because it requires different processes through the CDC.

“ACIP does not have the authority to change the vaccine information statement from the floor. There is a detailed process,” Reiss said in a social media post.

The consultants also voted to recommend that healthcare providers consider known risk factors for severe Covid-19 outcomes, “such as age, prior infection, immunosuppression and certain comorbidities identified by CDC” as part of informed consent. “Especially the people outlined in the vaccine information statement.”

Dr. Retsef Levi, MIT’s professor of operations management, who chairs the COVID-19 task force, said the group had consulted with “proper people” and believed that advice on informed consent was the one they could weigh.

He said after the meeting that there was nothing to ban ACIP from making such suggestions, “I think if you read and interpret the role of ACIP as a broad recommendation on issues related to vaccination policy, that would be at the heart of what we should consider.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has made significant changes to shooting this season by limiting adults aged 65 and over and young people at higher risk of severe Covid-19. If the provider is willing to sign it out, those who do not fall into these categories may still be able to get the vaccine.

However, the vote of the CDC advisory committee has had other implications for vaccine reception, as some states closely follow their recommendations. The result may be a patchwork of state-to-state vaccine access, depending in part on who can manage the vaccine and what the provider is willing to provide.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said in a statement that the vote for shared clinical decisions “provides immunity coverage through all payment mechanisms, including due plans such as children’s health insurance plans, Medicaid and Medicare, and insurance plans through the federal health insurance market.”

AHIP is a former health insurance program in the United States, and its members (providing coverage to more than 200 million Americans) say they will continue to cover all immunizations for ACIP patients as of September 1 through the end of 2026. This includes updated Covid-19-19 and flu vaccines.

Voting for newborns’ hepatitis C vaccine

The COVID-19 vote of the CDC advisory committee was the beginning of a mess at the meeting, with consultants making early decisions around measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox vaccines, and then a closely watched vote on the newborn’s hepatitis B vaccine.

Vaccine consultants voted 11-1 on Friday in favor of a scheduled vote on changes to the hepatitis B shooting recommendations. It was a surprising twist after a long discussion Thursday, when consultants considered a suggestion to wait for the newborn to give the newborn a hepatitis B vaccine until at least one month old. Currently, this photo is usually provided to the baby before leaving the hospital at birth.

On Friday morning, an ACIP member suggested that the committee consider recommending a vaccine even after 2 or 3 months. Commission member Dr. Robert Malone then postponed the vote indefinitely on the “safety, effectiveness and timing” of shooting. Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician who led the ACIP task force only voted against the hepatitis C vaccine.

However, vaccine consultants have taken a move to hepatitis C: a vote to recommend pregnant women undergoing testing for the virus. ACIP usually has no effect in determining tests, and hepatitis testing has become part of the recommended routine care during pregnancy.

“The purpose of the vote is to encourage providers and health systems to increase testing rates for pregnancy to ensure that women with hepatitis B and their newborns can properly care about the spread of the virus from mother to child,” a HHS spokesman said in a statement after the vote.

People with anti-vaccine activity have long questioned the birth dose of vaccines because hepatitis C is transmitted primarily through dirty needles or sexual activity. In June’s Town Hall, Kennedy said giving it to a newborn is “really a profit motive.”

But the data show that the recommended exercise for hepatitis C vaccination with hepatitis B, which has been recommended since 1991, is successful. After implementation, hepatitis B infection in infant B dropped from an average of 18,000 per year to about 20 cases per year.

Children infected with hepatitis C will almost always experience chronic infections that can damage the liver, increase the risk of liver scarring and cancer or the need for transplants.

It is unclear how the committee will proceed. During the meeting, some non-voting ACIP contacts spoke at the meeting to demand a clear idea of ​​what to do next and why the hepatitis B vaccine is still to be reconsidered now, despite the lack of new evidence.

New votes for MMRV shots for some kids

CDC vaccine consultants also made new votes on measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox vaccines in the children’s vaccine program on Friday.

On Thursday, they voted against using a combined vaccine for young children, but in the second vote, different standards were set for children through the Children’s Vaccine Program, which provided photos of low-income children.

Friday’s new vote aligns the children’s vaccine program with other recommendations. Nine members voted in favor and three abstained.

Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American Medical College and liaison with no voting rights, said Friday that he was worried about the MMRV contradictory vote that would have made different suggestions for people of different socioeconomic levels.

Goldman said this suggests that the children’s vaccine vote “actually reveals that you have no data or evidence to challenge your current position and that there is no … no related harm.”

ACIP member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist, replied that the wording of the first childhood vaccine vote was “really confusing and inaccurate” and by Friday morning, the wording had a new clarity.

Nevertheless, several medical groups have expressed concern about changes in MMRV.

“New procedures and recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) have enabled parents to choose a combined MMRV vaccine for children under the age of 4,” Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, ACIP liaison for the American Medical Association, said in a statement. “The AMA is concerned that this change not only reduces parental choices, but also reflects ACIP’s reliance on selective data when forming its guidance.”

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account on CNN.com