I. Historical Context

Historical Context With the expansion of biotechnology and public health infrastructure, the childhood immunization schedule has grown to be a cornerstone of American preventive medicine. However, as the complexity and frequency of these recommendations have increased, both medical and policy stakeholders have begun to re-evaluate and re-educate themselves on the historical trajectory of these mandates.

The U.S. vaccination framework has undergone a significant transformation over the last four decades. Before the  2025 reforms, the CDC recommended routine immunizations against 17 to 18 different diseases for all children, including Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Tetanus, Polio, and COVID-19. For a child following the full recommended schedule from birth through age 18, the total number of doses most likely exceeded 70. This starkly contrasts with the 1983 schedule, which targeted only 7 diseases with approximately 24 doses. Medical professionals refer to this crowded schedule as a triumph of modern science that has eliminated previously common illnesses. Conversely, some skeptics and parental advocacy groups have hypothesized that the rapid increase in doses has contributed to growing public hesitancy.

The United States investment in immunization programs is financially strong. For the 2025 fiscal year, the CDC’s discretionary funding request reached approximately $9.7 billion, with a specific $732 million carve-out for the "Section 317" Immunization Program to assist underinsured populations. Furthermore, the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a mandatory entitlement, allocates between $5 billion and $8 billion annually to ensure equitable access. Studies suggest that while high-income countries spend an average of $10-15 per capita on vaccine procurement, U.S. federal spending is bolstered by heavy investments in R&D through the NIH and high-scale procurement costs, leading some economists to hypothesize that the U.S. effectively subsidizes global vaccine innovation.

Historically, the U.S. has served as the primary engine for global immunization efforts, acting as the largest donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was long considered the standard for evidence-based policy, with many developing nations modeling their own national schedules after U.S. recommendations. However, recent shifts in domestic policy have led some global health analysts to hypothesize a waning in influence. If the U.S. continues to reduce its recommended doses or pull back federal funding, experts suggest it may diminish the nation's norm-setting power, potentially altering the momentum of international eradication programs for diseases like polio and measles.

The historical expansion of the U.S. vaccine schedule highlights a critical intersection between public health success and shifting socioeconomic priorities. As the 2025 reforms begin to take hold, this background provides essential information to navigate the current legislative and medical debates surrounding pediatric care.

II. Current Policy

Under the Trump administration, the vaccine schedule was revised in January 2026, reducing the number of recommended immunizations for children from 17 to 10. Such changes meant full vaccinations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, COVID-19, rotavirus, HPV, and meningococcal meningitis were no longer included in the Department of Health and Human Services’ universal recommendation list; and if parents wanted their children to be vaccinated against the above diseases, they would have to undergo a process of “shared decision making” with a physician, to decide if their child is at risk of exposure to such diseases based on their individual characteristics. 

In July of 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was passed by Congress, signing a plethora of Trump’s tax and spending policies into law. During debate in Congress, however, one of the major points of contention within the bill was regarding the budget cuts to America’s healthcare programs, most notably Medicaid and Medicare. Cuts of over $1.2 trillion USD would be made to Medicaid over the course of 10 years, through tightening work requirements and, therefore, eligibility requirements for coverage, mandating more frequent eligibility checks, and stricter state financing rules, among many other changes. For Medicare, restrictions were imposed on the criteria for people to be eligible for Medicare, and a 9-year ban was imposed to prevent improvements to Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs), which aim to help lower-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for out-of-pocket costs. 

Most crucially, both Medicaid and Medicare are responsible for covering vaccination costs, with both programs offering free vaccinations for all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as long as they are covered by an individual’s healthcare plan. This Act reduced Medicaid and Medicare coverage for Americans all over the country, and thus, in turn, removed many citizens’ access to vaccinations. The administration's main justification for such cuts was that reducing unsustainable spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would allow it to extend government funding for previously enacted tax cuts. Though many did recognise the importance of Medicaid and Medicare to American citizens, they viewed the cuts as necessary to curb wasteful spending and to ensure that the administration could balance its books for the years to come.

A. Public Response

In response to the changes in the vaccination schedule, various pediatricians across the US criticised such changes, saying that such changes to the vaccination schedule were misinformed and dangerous, and that adapting the US's childhood immunisation schedule to that of other countries' "ignores fundamental differences in healthcare access and infectious disease risk". The American Academy for Pediatrics (AAP) also strongly opposed such changes, calling them "dangerous and unnecessary", and recommended that children be immunised against such diseases. The AAP and more than 200 health groups later sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers “to conduct swift and robust oversight regarding the abrupt changes to the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule.” 

Meanwhile, at least 23 states have since announced that they would entirely reject the new vaccination schedule in favour of vaccine guidance from the AAP. For example, Illinois passed legislation encouraging the state to follow the vaccine advice from independent medical organisations, with Hawaii's state legislature also passing bills for the state's Department of Health to presume both the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics for child health immunisation policies. Additionally, health officials (largely in blue states) formed alliances such as the West Coast Health Alliance and the Northeast Public Health Collaborative to protect access to vaccines in their states, saying it would reduce unnecessary confusion surrounding vaccine policy. 

However, not all states decided to reject the new schedule. Certain other states, such as Louisiana, passed legislation to increase the maximum charge for childhood vaccination visits by patients, while Florida approved laws that relaxed immunisation requirements for schoolchildren. Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, previously also announced the state’s intention to become the first to drop all vaccine mandates, including for schoolchildren. States such as Kentucky addressed the changes made to the vaccine schedule by removing Hepatitis B from child immunisation requirements, and Oklahoma passed similar legislation regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirements for employment and school attendance. 

Overall, the changes made to the CDC child immunisation schedule have caused a plethora of policy changes at the state level. The effects of such policy changes are yet to be seen, but one thing is certain - lawmakers must have the interests of their constituents’ health at the forefront when creating health-related legislation for the years to come.

III. Perceived Benefits

Supporters, including many parents’ rights groups and physicians who emphasize patient choice, believe the revised childhood vaccine schedule has real advantages. They argue that the change is not about rejecting science, but about applying it in a way that feels more responsive to families. In their view, the benefits fall into three main areas: rebuilding public trust, improving how public funds are spent, and repairing relationships between doctors and families.

A. Rebuilding Public Trust

Many backers see the biggest potential benefit as restoring confidence in vaccines and in public health institutions. In the years leading up to 2025, polls showed that a noticeable share of parents, particularly Republicans and independents, felt the previous schedule was too aggressive. Some said that COVID-era policies left them feeling pressured by institutions they viewed as distant and unresponsive.

Supporters believe the revised schedule could ease that tension. By stepping back from a one-size-fits-all approach and encouraging more open conversations, they say the system signals that families’ concerns are being heard. From a parent’s point of view, discussing what makes sense for their child may feel very different from simply being told what is required.

Some ethicists who favor this approach argue that strict mandates can sometimes harden resistance rather than encourage cooperation. They believe that reducing the sense of coercion could lower the political temperature around vaccines. If that happens, satisfaction among families who previously felt alienated might improve, and children growing up in those households could see health decisions as something that involves dialogue rather than conflict.

B. Improving Financial Efficiency

Fiscal conservatives also see potential cost savings. They argue that narrowing certain universal recommendations could reduce administrative expenses tied to outreach, tracking, and compliance efforts for lower-priority vaccines. In theory, that could free up significant federal and state funding while maintaining full coverage for the core set of essential vaccines under programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, and the Affordable Care Act mandates.

Supporters suggest that reducing reporting requirements and administrative burdens would allow states to redirect resources toward services families say they need most, such as mental health screenings, behavioral therapy, and expanded access in rural areas. In this view, concentrating funds on vaccines with the strongest evidence of impact while trimming lower-priority efforts represents responsible budgeting.

Some also speculate that insurers might benefit from lower costs, which could translate into stabilized premiums or expanded coverage for common childhood conditions. The broader idea is to create a more flexible public health system that prioritizes high-impact interventions while easing financial strain.

C. Strengthening Doctor-Family Relationships

Another frequently cited benefit is the potential to improve communication between doctors and parents. Supporters say that when vaccine decisions are framed as shared discussions rather than checklist requirements, appointments can become less tense. Parents may feel more comfortable voicing concerns, and physicians may have more room to tailor guidance to a child’s medical history and family circumstances.

Advocates believe this approach could reduce the stigma some hesitant parents report feeling. They argue that when families are treated as partners in decision-making, trust grows. Over time, that trust might increase adherence to core vaccines because recommendations are accepted through understanding rather than obligation.

From this perspective, pediatricians serve less as rule enforcers and more as advisors. Children who observe these conversations may also learn that medical decisions involve asking questions and weighing information carefully.

D. Looking Ahead

Public health experts have raised concerns about the possibility of declining vaccination rates. Supporters respond that outcomes should be measured carefully through parent satisfaction surveys, opt-in rates for non-core vaccines, and continued tracking of essential immunization coverage. They argue that the real test will be in the data. If trust increases while core vaccination rates remain strong, they believe the revised schedule could demonstrate that greater flexibility and open dialogue can coexist with sound public health goals.

IV. Potential Drawbacks

A. Vaccination Rates and Emerging Outbreaks

The emerging concerns surrounding childhood vaccination coverage in the U.S. reveal data that showcases a decline for several principal vaccines, stemming beyond the 2025 recent federal schedule change. CDC and related analyses highlight these declines with kindergarten coverage for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), DTaP, polio, and varicella decreasing to around 92-93% in 2024-25, which had previously been closer to 95% in 2019-20, while exemptions rose to 3.6%. Public health experts note that this percentage places communities below the necessary approximate 95% coverage minimum, which is required for herd immunity against highly contagious diseases like measles.

Several professionals have found correlations between these decline rates and the increasingly rising appearance of outbreaks. One of the areas that has been experiencing the largest U.S. measles outbreak in decades is South Carolina, where roughly 700-950 cases have been identified in Spartanburg County, as well as associated school exposures where officials have determined that local kindergarten coverage consisted of about 91%, falling below the 95% target. This example is one of the many reported, where measles cases have reached national levels with thousands of CDC-confirmed cases occurring over the past year. Experts warn that if current trends continue, the U.S. public health will be threatened and stripped of its “measles-free” label. Many epidemiologists hypothesize that continued limited encouragement of recommended vaccines and their minimal promotion will perpetuate the decline in coverage. The reductions in necessary vaccines may also contribute to similar outbreaks for other vaccine-preventable illnesses. Although this is possible, the outcomes ultimately depend on state policies and public behavior.

B. Impacts on Research, Rural Access, and Preparedness

If the narrowed list of vaccination recommendations in childhood and the reduction in funding pursues, researchers caution that there may be an impact on the robust data, which considers a vaccination’s effectiveness and safety, and tracks who is getting them. The limited robust data available will especially disrupt marginalized, under-studied communities, such as low-income or rural areas. Further insubstantial surveillance and evaluation programs render compound complications in detecting early changes in coverage, emerging clusters of under-vaccinated children in specific neighborhoods, or gaps in access that need targeted interventions, where people want to get vaccinated but are unable to due to closed clinics or financial barriers. Public Health scholars contend that there could be a decrease in innovative, new vaccines and delivery models due to the reduced investment incentives. This effect extends to where it limits the evaluation of strategies to reach hesitant or marginalized populations. In other words, it would be difficult to figure out the best methods to speak to parents who are skeptical of vaccinations because the lack of funding wouldn’t support authorized surveys conducted by scientists. This reveals the loss of credible professionals and communities, which closes the access gap when it decreases programs that support parents with transportation. Parents who may not be against vaccines have other circumstances, such as working, limited time, and connections that can look after their child who receives the after-effects of a shot, and so when compensation is not offered, it proves to be a complicated situation. Without funding, the active fight against misinformation could be immobilized as well. 

In rural areas, the deficiency in federal support for vaccination, testing, and outreach can exacerbate challenges experienced in access, as suggested by existing evidence from COVID-19 funding debates. Rural communities with minimal populations contain pre-existing impediments from having fewer providers, longer commutes, and financial barriers. Reduced funding or a weakened schedule could amplify difficulties in maintaining vaccine clinics, mobile units, and local confidence-building campaigns. Experts, therefore, hypothesize that these cuts could expand rural-urban disparities in immunization and increase the burden of severe disease in rural areas, particularly if new outbreaks occur.

C. Global Ripple Effects and International Standards

The U.S. has been involved in global immunization norms and financing, as it has played a prominent role throughout history. As a result, some global health professionals warn that there could be a possible “domino effect” because of the several components embedded in the global system. There could be potential consequences if the U.S. reduces its recommended childhood vaccines or shifts its position on certain products. For example, it could incite other countries—especially those that look to U.S. agencies for technical guidance—to reconsider their own schedules or minimize the perceived importance of particular vaccines, emphasizing the “domino effect” as the notion spreads to other areas. This effect continues to be reinforced when analysts stress that there have been multiple low- and middle-income countries that are now increasingly dependent on WHO guidance and regional technical groups, making any influence of U.S. changes likely uneven and mediated by local politics and existing programs. Nevertheless, they caution that different, mixed messages from major global actors could complicate efforts to maintain confidence in routine immunization and pandemic preparedness initiatives.

D. Disproportionate Effects on Vulnerable Families

As many public health and equity researchers predict, the reduction in recommended vaccines, funding, or programmatic emphasis could have a disproportionate effect on families who are already challenged by barriers, including immunocompromised individuals, low-income backgrounds, uninsured or underinsured access, minimal English proficiency, or living circumstances—those in rural or underserved urban areas. If community coverage fails, certain groups are particularly vulnerable, such as children with immunocompromised conditions—who depend heavily on herd immunity because they may not respond fully to vaccines; experts worry that policy shifts perceived as “de-emphasizing” childhood vaccines could increase their risk of exposure.

Families from low-income backgrounds could have less access to healthcare or stable transportation, and so may struggle to navigate a more complex or less strongly supported immunization landscape, especially if support programs offering free vaccines, reminder systems, or school-based clinics are scaled back. Minimal English proficiency, or any other language barriers, can contribute to confusion through complicating the understanding of changing recommendations; this can make it difficult to differentiate between which vaccines are still strongly advised and which are simply omitted from the universal schedule. Households with economic stress may delay or skip vaccines if they are considered “optional” or if out-of-pocket expenses rise when federal support declines, which professionals fear could deepen existing disparities in both infection risk and long-term health outcomes.

Overall, while experts differ in their political framing, many converge on the hypothesis that declining vaccination rates, resurgent outbreaks such as measles in South Carolina, and potential scale-backs in funding and guidance could interact to increase preventable disease burden and widen inequities, particularly among those who already face the greatest barriers to care.

V. Future Policy

There are professional and public health experts who hypothesize that there will be a shift in the future of vaccination trends toward localized autonomy, where regional areas can make their own decisions, and increased disease volatility, where there are fluctuations through unstable and unpredictable disease patterns. As many epidemiologists suggest, if there is a persistent lack of federal issue towards recommendations, there can be a transition from universal protection to uneven, “pockets of immunity”, which are established from specific state policies and community-level trust—the level of trust individuals have in local health professionals. This contributes to an influx of preventable illnesses in certain regions, which can form a “reactive” policy cycle. This occurs when states or Congress only intervene if the effect of the outbreaks demonstrates an impact on the labor market or healthcare costs. A notion regarding the possibility of a “domino effect” that experts are investigating reveals their particular association with international health standards when many developing nations historically rely on the guidelines, data, and standards of the CDC to form their own regulatory benchmarks.

Many legal and policy analysts expect a response to these federal changes in the form of rapid, intense, and sometimes chaotic activity in state legislatures and the court system, where many lawmakers pass multiple laws and courts face the legal controversies stemming from those laws. On one hand, some states may enforce stricter mandates to preserve herd immunity. On the other hand, other states might follow the federal lead by broadening parental exemptions under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Professionals are recommending measuring additional indicators or metrics that are beyond raw vaccination rates—the percentage of people vaccinated—in order to explore the long-term impacts. Some methods professionals recommend include tracking the frequency of emergency room visits for diseases that are normally prevented by vaccines, because if the visits for such diseases increase, it may suggest a decrease in immunity. Another system that can be observed is the geographical concentration where exemptions from vaccination are available because of non-medical beliefs. If these exemptions are frequent in a particular area, there can be a cluster of unvaccinated individuals that increases outbreak risk. Furthermore, professionals recommend the consideration of measuring the disruptive nature of quarantines within both general external conflicts—such as classes or schools that may close temporarily when a disease spreads—and the financial aspects—when parents may miss work, school may lose funding, or communities experience extra expenses as a result of school closures. Analyzing these patterns supports the discussions about vaccination policy by helping differentiate whether a policy shift enhances parental autonomy without compromising the stability of the broader public health infrastructure.

VI. References

317 Coalition. n.d. “President’s Budget Request: FY 2025.” 317 Coalition. 317 Coalition. https://www.317coalition.org/president-s-budget-request.

American Academy of Pediatrics. 2021. “Immunizations.” Www.aap.org. AAP. 2021. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/immunizations/.

“Bill Resource.” 2026. Statenet.com. Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. 2026. https://custom.statenet.com/public/resources.cgi?id=ID:bill:KY2026000H466&ciq=ncsl&client_md=772b40ac45b2767b1a19319189bef14c&mode=current_text.

CDC. 2024. “Vaccination Coverage among Young Children (0 – 35 Months).” ChildVaxView. CDC. October 23, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/childvaxview/about/interactive-reports.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fimz-managers%2Fcoverage%2Fchildvaxview%2Finteractive-reports%2Findex.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. “CDC Budget Overview.” CDC.gov. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2025/FY-25-Budget-Overview-Factsheet.pdf.

Dall, Chris. 2025. “Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.” CIDRAP. CIDRAP. August 1, 2025. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/childhood-vaccines/us-childhood-vaccination-rates-continue-fall-cdc-data-show.

“Fact Sheet: CDC Childhood Immunization Recommendations.” 2026. HHS.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. January 5, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-cdc-childhood-immunization-recommendations.html.

Fisher, Adrian. 2026. “State Net.” Lexisnexis.com. LexisNexis StateNet. 2026. https://sn.lexisnexis.com/opentext/eyJ0eXBlIjoiYmlsbCIsImlkIjoiTEEyMDI1MDAwSDY1NSJ9.jKsHIJeVVm_-qdam5DqkZ288_Dax4DT8xX-knSdrayg/text.

Hill, Holly A., David Yankey, Laurie D. Elam-Evans, Yi Mu, Michael Chen, Georgina Peacock, and James A. Singleton. 2024. “Decline in Vaccination Coverage by Age 24 Months and Vaccination Inequities among Children Born in 2020 and 2021 — National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2021–2023.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 73 (38): 844–53. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7338a3.

Illinois Department of Public Health. 2025. “Gov. Pritzker Signs Landmark Bill to Protect and Expand Vaccine Access for Illinoisans.” Illinois.gov. IDPH. 2025. https://dph.illinois.gov/resource-center/news/2025/december/release-20251202.html.

Immunization Economics. 2025. “Worldwide Costs of COVID-19 Vaccine Procurement and Delivery between 2020 and 2023.” Immunization Economics. ThinkWell. December 2025. https://immunizationeconomics.org/recent-activity/2025/12/1/worldwide-costs-of-covid-19-vaccine-procurement-and-delivery-between-2020-and-2023/.

International Vaccine Access Center. 2025. “Across the U.S., Childhood Vaccination Rates Continue to Decline | International Vaccine Access Center.” International Vaccine Access Center. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. August 20, 2025. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/2025/across-the-us-childhood-vaccination-rates-continue-to-decline.

Jenco, Melissa. 2026. “AAP: CDC Plan to Remove Universal Childhood Vaccine Recommendations ‘Dangerous and Unnecessary.’” American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP. January 5, 2026. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/34104/AAP-CDC-plan-to-remove-universal-childhood-vaccine?autologincheck=redirected.

Jett, Shane. 2025. “Bill Resource.” Statenet.com. Oklahoma State Senate. 2025. https://custom.statenet.com/public/resources.cgi?id=ID:bill:OK2025000S1906&ciq=ncsl&client_md=7040e613390c05274d8bb2372fdd68a6&mode=current_text.

Jwa, Sinchul, Yousuke Imanishi, Marie T. Ascher, and Matthew Z. Dudley. 2025. “Communication Interventions to Reduce Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review.” Vaccine 61 (August): 127401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127401.

kffannar. 2024. “The U.S. Government and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance | KFF.” KFF. KFF. July 17, 2024. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-u-s-government-gavi-the-vaccine-alliance/.

kffisabellev. 2026. “KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust: Trust in the CDC and Views of Federal Childhood Vaccine Schedule Changes | KFF.” KFF. KFF. February 6, 2026. https://www.kff.org/health-information-trust/trust-in-cdc-and-views-of-federal-childhood-vaccine-schedule-changes/.

Matza, Max. 2025. “Florida Plans to Become First State to Ban All Vaccine Requirements.” BBC, September 3, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg0e485wwwo.

Nadeem, Reem. 2025. “Parents’ Confidence in Childhood Vaccine Effectiveness, Safety Testing and Schedule.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. November 18, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/11/18/parents-confidence-in-childhood-vaccine-effectiveness-safety-testing-and-schedule/.

National Conference of State Legislatures. n.d. “State Public Health Legislation Database.” Www.ncsl.org. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-public-health-legislation-database.

National Vaccine Information Center. 2018. “CDC Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule: 1983 vs 2017.” NVIC.org. National Vaccine Information Center. 2018. https://www.nvic.org/NVIC/media/LegacySite/pdf/downloads/1983-2017-vaccine-schedules.pdf.

NGA Center for Best Practices. 2021. “State Strategies to Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Rural Communities.” National Governors Association. NGA. August 13, 2021. https://www.nga.org/publications/state-strategies-to-increase-covid-19-vaccine-uptake-in-rural-communities/.

Opel, Douglas J., Rita Mangione-Smith, Jeffrey D. Robinson, John Heritage, Victoria DeVere, Halle S. Salas, Chuan Zhou, and James A. Taylor. 2015. “The Influence of Provider Communication Behaviors on Parental Vaccine Acceptance and Visit Experience.” American Journal of Public Health 105 (10): 1998–2004. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.30242.

Parlapiano, Alicia, Margot Sanger-Katz, Aatish Bhatia, and Josh Katz. 2025. “What’s in Trump’s Big Policy Bill?” The New York Times, June 30, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/30/upshot/senate-republican-megabill.html.

“Protecting Our Future: Why the U.S. Childhood Vaccine Schedule Overhaul Risks Global Health.” 2026. Wfpha.org. World Federation of Public Health Associations. January 7, 2026. https://www.wfpha.org/us-childhood-vaccine-schedule-overhaul/.

Richards. 2025. “Bill Resource.” Statenet.com. Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau. 2025. https://custom.statenet.com/public/resources.cgi?id=ID:bill:HI2025000S3057&ciq=ncsl&client_md=f7ef565b839858af3257b43183a95ea3&mode=current_text.

Ruiz, Sienna, Uzoma C. Okere, Michelle Eggers, Catina O’Leary, Beth Prusacyk, and Ashley J. Housten. 2022. “What Cuts in Federal COVID-19 Funding Could Mean for Rural Communities.” Health Equity 6 (1): 658–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2022.0076.

Tirrell, Meg, Deidre McPhillips, and Jamie Gumbrecht. 2026. “South Carolina Measles Outbreak Is Largest in US since Measles Was Declared Eliminated.” CNN. CNN. January 27, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/27/health/largest-us-measles-outbreak-south-carolina.

Tupps, Cara, Dora Curry, Amanda Edwards, Eva Bazant, Ann Moen, Anthony W. Mounts, and Joseph Bresee. 2025. “COVID-19 Vaccination Implementation in Six Lower- and Middle-Income Countries: Successes, Challenges, and Lessons for Pandemic Preparedness.” Edited by Julio Croda. PLOS Global Public Health 5 (5): e0004417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004417.

Ungar, Laura. 2026. “Changes to the US Vaccine Recommendations Are Sowing Confusion and Could Harm Kids.” AP News. The Associated Press. January 10, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/vaccines-rfk-shared-decision-making-pediatrician-70cf2dad36ca9934e033edd71025ea63.

WHO. 2021. “Economics.” Who.int. WHO. 2021. https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/immunization-analysis-and-insights/vaccine-impact-value/economic-assessments.

World Health Organization. 2021. “Global Vaccine Action Plan.” Www.who.int. WHO. 2021. https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/strategies/global-vaccine-action-plan.

Zhou, Fangjun, Tara C Jatlaoui, Andrew J Leidner, Rosalind J Carter, Xiaoyu Dong, Jeanne M Santoli, Shannon Stokley, Demetre C Daskalakis, and Georgina Peacock. 2024. “Health and Economic Benefits of Routine Childhood Immunizations in the Era of the Vaccines for Children Program — United States, 1994–2023.” MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 73 (31): 682–85. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7331a2.