US medical groups issue their own vaccine guidance as federal system fractures

Some of America’s leading medical organisations have taken the unusual step of issuing coordinated vaccination recommendations independently of the federal government, as doctors attempt to provide patients with consistent advice ahead of the autumn and winter respiratory virus season.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) released recommendations on Wednesday covering COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Their guidance was coordinated with the American Medical Association (AMA) and informed by independent reviews of the latest evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness undertaken through the Vaccine Integrity Project.

The move represents a significant departure from the way vaccination policy has traditionally operated in the United States.

For decades, doctors and patients have largely looked to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), for recommendations about which vaccines should be given, to whom and when.

ACIP reviews evidence and makes recommendations which, when adopted by the CDC director, become official CDC policy. Those recommendations can have consequences beyond the doctor’s surgery because they influence vaccination programmes, state policies and insurance coverage.

However, major professional medical organisations have become increasingly concerned about changes to the federal vaccine advisory process and recommendations made by the Trump administration.

The result is that professional bodies representing doctors who care for different sections of the population are increasingly producing their own guidance.

Dr Sandra Fryhofer of the American Medical Association said patients were currently facing considerable confusion surrounding vaccine recommendations and that the coordinated approach was intended to ensure the public could access clear and consistent guidance based on scientific evidence while the federal process remained in flux.

The recommendations released this week cover different patient populations but broadly continue to support vaccination against the major respiratory viruses.

For influenza, the medical groups continue to recommend annual vaccination for almost everyone aged six months and older, with particular importance placed on protecting people at increased risk of serious complications, including older adults, pregnant women, young children and people with certain underlying medical conditions.

The recommendations surrounding COVID-19 illustrate more clearly where professional medical organisations and federal policy have diverged.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged between six and 23 months because infants and very young children face a higher risk of hospitalisation from the virus than older children.

For children aged two to 18, the AAP recommends vaccination for those at increased risk of severe COVID-19, living in long-term care facilities, who have never previously received a COVID vaccine or whose household includes someone at high risk of severe disease.

It also supports vaccination for children whose parents want them protected even when they do not fall into one of those higher-risk categories.

Pregnancy is another area where medical organisations have sought to provide clear guidance.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, alongside other vaccines recommended at different stages of pregnancy to protect women and their babies.

ACOG says evidence accumulated from millions of vaccinations has not demonstrated an increased risk of miscarriage or other adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Its recommendations are significant because vaccination during pregnancy does more than protect the person receiving the injection. Antibodies generated by the mother can cross the placenta and provide babies with protection during their first months of life, when they may be particularly vulnerable to some infections but too young to receive certain vaccines themselves.

For people with weakened immune systems, the Infectious Diseases Society of America strongly recommends COVID-19 and influenza vaccination from six months of age and also recommends RSV vaccination for immunocompromised adults and adolescents where appropriate.

IDSA said its updated evidence review continued to find that the vaccines provide protection against hospitalisation and severe illness with little to no serious adverse effects.

RSV recommendations also remain an important part of preparations for the coming respiratory season. The virus usually causes relatively mild cold-like symptoms but can cause serious respiratory illness in babies, older adults and people with certain medical conditions.

The latest recommendations arrive as updated vaccines for the 2026-27 respiratory virus season begin to become available and families start thinking about autumn vaccinations.

They also come against the background of a much wider disagreement over US vaccination policy.

Earlier this year, the AAP published its own childhood immunisation schedule after the federal schedule removed routine recommendations for several vaccines, including hepatitis A and B, COVID-19, rotavirus, influenza and meningococcal disease, moving some towards recommendations based on individual risk or shared clinical decision-making.

Twelve medical and healthcare organisations representing more than one million professionals subsequently endorsed the AAP schedule.

Those organisations argued that longstanding vaccine recommendations had been changed without the robust public evidence-review process traditionally used to develop national vaccination policy.

The latest respiratory-virus guidance extends that independent approach beyond the childhood schedule.

The organisations involved say their recommendations have been developed through structured reviews of scientific evidence examining the benefits and potential harms of vaccination.

That matters because disagreement over vaccination recommendations creates practical problems as well as public confusion.

A patient may now encounter federal guidance saying one thing, a professional medical society recommending another and a doctor following the guidance of their own speciality organisation.

There are also questions about insurance coverage and access. Federal vaccine recommendations have historically played an important role in determining which vaccinations insurers are required to cover without patients having to pay out of pocket, meaning divergence between federal policy and clinical recommendations could potentially have financial consequences for patients.

States may also respond differently. Vaccination requirements and many aspects of vaccine policy are determined at state level, raising the possibility that access and recommendations could increasingly vary depending on where someone lives.

The professional organisations involved are attempting to reduce some of that uncertainty by coordinating their recommendations rather than each producing entirely separate advice.

The AMA has brought the guidance together through a new public information initiative designed to allow patients and clinicians to see recommendations for different age groups and clinical circumstances alongside information about the evidence used to develop them.

For patients, the immediate message from the organisations is relatively straightforward: vaccines against influenza, COVID-19 and RSV continue to provide important protection against serious disease for the people for whom they are recommended.

The bigger story, however, is what has happened to the system responsible for delivering that message.

Scientific disagreement is a normal part of medicine, and vaccine recommendations can legitimately change as diseases evolve, new products become available and evidence develops. Different organisations may also reach different conclusions when balancing risks and benefits for particular groups.

What is unusual is for America’s major medical societies to conclude that they need an independent structure capable of reviewing the evidence and issuing coordinated recommendations because they do not believe the traditional federal process is currently providing sufficient clarity.

That creates a new challenge for doctors. Rather than pointing patients towards a single nationally recognised source of vaccine advice, clinicians may increasingly have to explain why their professional organisation’s recommendation differs from federal guidance and help patients navigate those competing messages.

It also risks making an already difficult public-health problem harder. Vaccine confidence depends partly on people understanding who is making recommendations, what evidence they have considered and why advice has changed.

When respected institutions offer conflicting guidance, people who are already uncertain about vaccination can be left wondering which authority they are supposed to trust.

The professional organisations behind the new recommendations say that is precisely why they have acted. Their aim is to maintain a transparent, evidence-based route through which doctors and patients can obtain vaccination advice even while the federal process is disputed.

Whether that independent system becomes a temporary response to an extraordinary period in American public health or develops into a lasting alternative source of national vaccine guidance could prove considerably more important than the recommendations for any single vaccine.

For generations of American doctors, the CDC has been the country’s central authority on vaccination. The fact that leading medical organisations now believe they need to build another route for providing that guidance represents a profound change in the relationship between medicine and federal public health in the United States.

Stay informed with the stories shaping health and social care.

Register with The Daily Round for the latest sector news, inspections & reports, wellbeing content, workforce insights, expert features and practical updates—delivered free to your inbox.