In this photo illustration, a pharmacist holds a COVID-19 vaccine. States and clinicians are working on getting correct information on vaccines to vulnerable groups amid shifting federal guidance. (Photo illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Heading into the respiratory illness season, states and clinicians are working to encourage pregnant patients to get COVID-19 vaccinations, even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services no longer recommends that they should.

Along with being older and having an underlying health condition, pregnancy itself is a risk factor. Pregnant women are more vulnerable to developing severe illness from COVID-19. They’re also at high risk for complications, including preterm labor and stillbirth. The vast majority of medical experts say getting the shot is safe and effective — much safer than having the illness.

But HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in May that the agency would no longer recommend that pregnant women get the vaccine. Before testifying before Congress in June, Kennedy circulated a document on Capitol Hill claiming higher rates of fetal loss after vaccination. But the authors of those studies told Politico that their work had been misinterpreted.

Experts say the federal shift puts the onus on state health agencies to ramp up vaccine guidance and outreach. Clinicians and public health organizations are trying to dispel misinformation and make sure information reaches low-income people and people of color, who had higher maternal death rates during the pandemic. During the first two years of the pandemic, the virus contributed to a quarter of maternal deaths, according to federal data.

“We are severely disappointed,” said Dr. Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine. He has studied vaccines and pregnancy for the past 15 years and specializes in high-risk pregnancies.

Silverman called the federal shift a “public health tragedy on a grand scale.”

RFK Jr. ends COVID vaccine recommendation for healthy children, pregnant people

Vaccinations against COVID-19 help prevent severe illness in pregnant people as well as their newborns, who are too young to get vaccinated, Silverman said. In what’s called passive immunity, vaccinated mothers pass on antibodies to their babies through the placenta and through breast milk.

“State public health agencies are probably going to have to implement vaccine guidance that differs from the federal recommendations. And that’s going to be an interesting can of worms,” said OB-GYN Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas.

Turrentine serves on a board of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that focuses on immunization and infectious diseases. He said his recent pregnant patients who had COVID-19 hadn’t gotten the vaccine.

“The change in guidance on the federal level just really makes a lot of confusion, and it makes it very challenging to try to explain to individuals why all of a sudden the difference,” Turrentine said.

A slew of public health organizations have been making a concerted effort to dispel vaccine myths. They include the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization of maternal-fetal experts. At a news briefing the society held this month, clinicians stressed the safety and long-standing science behind COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the shots for RSV and the flu. Cases of RSV and the flu tend to peak in the winter months, while in recent years COVID-19 cases have spiked in the summer and the winter.

Dr. Brenna Hughes, an OB-GYN who chairs the organization’s infectious diseases and emerging threats committee, pointed to survey data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that less than a third of eligible pregnant patients received COVID-19 shots, and only 38% received RSV shots for the 2023 to 2024 season. Less than half — 47% — received flu shots, and 59% received TDAP (whooping cough) vaccines.

CDC data shows that for last year’s and this year’s season, only between 12% and 14% of pregnant patients got the COVID-19 vaccine.

“The complications from the infection are so much greater than the complications and the very few and typically minor adverse events that might occur from the vaccine,” said microbiologist Sabra Klein, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In June, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 30 other professional health organizations signed a letter urging insurers to continue covering the COVID-19 shot for pregnant women, and have continued to urge coverage since then.

CVS Caremark, one of the nation’s three major pharmacy benefit managers, told Stateline it will continue covering the vaccine for pregnant women. The Arizona, California and North Carolina state Medicaid agencies also told Stateline they are still currently covering COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women.

Doulas, midwives and lawmakers challenge erasure of Black women in maternal health care

Dr. Kimberly Fortner, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, said during the maternal-fetal medicine briefing that she hopes medical groups’ joint messaging will bolster insurers.

“Hopefully by us linking arms, that can then help develop consistency so that insurers will continue to pay for the vaccine,” she said.

Exacerbating disparities

Dr. Ayanna Bennett, director of the District of Columbia Department of Health, said the federal government’s new stance has upended “a system that’s been stable for a very long time.”

Bennett said her agency used federal pandemic aid to shore up vaccine outreach efforts to communities of color. Now that flow of money is ending.

The changes in federal guidance and funding will “almost certainly exacerbate” maternal health disparities, said Marie Thoma, a perinatal epidemiologist and an associate professor in the University of Maryland Department of Family Science who researches pregnancy and COVID-19.

Black and Indigenous women died at higher rates. The virus exacerbated existing racial disparities in maternal health — and created new ones: Latina mothers, who generally see low rates of maternal mortality, saw deaths surge to 28 per 100,000 in 2021. Their rate was about 12 per 100,000 in 2018, according to federal data.

“We are going in with some exposure already that we didn’t have during the start of the pandemic. So, there will be some protection, but now that will erode,” said Thoma. “If we’re not getting vaccines, or if people are hesitant to take them, we could see some increase.”

Silverman said the administration’s efforts to strip mentions of race from government policies makes it difficult for institutions to reach populations at greatest risk. He called the dismissal of decades of data “saddening and infuriating.”

“The politicization of the vaccine process, or access to it, is what concerns me the most,” said Dr. Yvette Martas, a Connecticut OB-GYN who chairs the board of directors of the Hispanic Health Council.

Many women “are trying to navigate an economic system that’s not always in their favor in terms of also providing access to the kind of educational material that they need,” she said.

Not just COVID-19

In June, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, replacing them with some members who are vaccine skeptics.

The change is creating chaos. Some states have vaccine laws, such as mandates for kids and coverage statutes, that are specifically tied to the committee’s decisions.

The Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota called on frontline health workers, health officials and professional societies to “counter the spread of inaccurate and confusing vaccine information.”

At a news briefing this month held by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, representatives from Alabama, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., said they will continue to recommend vaccines.

Alabama’s state health officer, Dr. Scott Harris, said clinicians will be instrumental in getting correct vaccination information to patients.

“We don’t think that we necessarily have the same authoritative voice that we might have had a decade ago in trying to guide people in what to do, but we do believe that people trust their health care providers in most cases and are certainly willing to listen to them,” he said at the briefing.

Bennett said she is hopeful that strong, consistent messaging from respected medical organizations will help combat confusion.

“Having established groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology make very firm recommendations that keep us essentially not changed from where we have been, I think, should reassure families,” she said.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

People listen to a sermon before being admitted to lunch at the Hope Center, which assists homeless and addicted residents in Hagerstown, Md. Experts say Medicaid cuts will exacerbate rural communities’ access to mental health care. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Across the nation, Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health care, and in rural America, residents disproportionately rely on the public insurance program.

But Medicaid cuts in the massive tax and spending bill signed into law earlier this month will worsen mental health disparities in those communities, experts say, as patients lose coverage and rural health centers are unable to remain open amid a loss of funds.

“The context to begin with is, even with no Medicaid cuts, the access to mental health services in rural communities is spotty at best, just very spotty at best — and in many communities, there’s literally no care,” said Ron Manderscheid, former executive director of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors.

Cuts over the next 10 years could force low-income rural families to pay for mental health care out of pocket on top of driving farther for care, experts say. Many will simply forgo care for depression, bipolar disorder and other illnesses that need consistent treatment.

“Not only do you have very few services available, but you don’t have the resources to pay for the services,” Manderscheid said. “That makes the problem even worse.”

Rural communities are already at higher risk of suicide, with rates almost doubling over the past two decades. Already, rural communities are grappling with a shortage in mental health professionals, making them more vulnerable to losses compared with more urban areas, experts say.

Paul Mackie, assistant director of the Center for Rural Behavioral Health at Minnesota State University, Mankato, studies rural mental health workforce shortages.

“If it [coverage] goes away, what would then be the person’s next option if they already don’t have the resources?” said Mackie, who grew up on a rural Michigan dairy farm. “You can have a rural psychologist or a rural clinical social worker working under a shingle, literally alone.”

Small rural hospitals often provide critical behavioral health care access, he said. One analysis found the cuts next year would leave 380 rural hospitals at risk of shutting down.

States such as Mackie’s Minnesota, which expanded Medicaid eligibility under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, would suffer significant slashes in federal matches as a result of President Donald Trump’s signature legislation. The law, which includes tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, cuts the federal government’s 90% matching rate for enrollees covered under expansion to anywhere from 50% to 74%.

States will have to redetermine eligibility twice a year on millions enrolled under Medicaid expansion. Some Medicaid recipients also will have to prove work history. The new law creates work requirement exceptions for those with severe medical conditions — including mental disorders and substance use — but experts say proving those conditions may be convoluted. The exact qualifications and diagnoses for the exceptions haven’t been spelled out, according to a report by KFF, a health policy research organization.

“You can’t work when your mental illness is not treated,” said Dr. Heidi Alvey, an emergency and critical care medicine physician in Indiana. “It’s so counter to the reality of the situation.”

Alvey worked seven years at Baylor Scott & White Health’s hospital in Temple, Texas. As nearby rural critical access hospitals and other mental health centers shut down, the hospital became the only access point for people hours away, she said.

“People who just had absolutely no access to care were coming hours in to see us,” she said. Many had serious untreated mental health conditions, she said, and had to wait days or weeks in the emergency department until a care facility had an open bed.

She’s concerned that Medicaid cuts will only make those problems worse.

Jamie Freeny, director of the Center for School Behavioral Health at advocacy group Mental Health America of Greater Houston, worries for the rural families her center serves. The organization works with school districts across the state, including those in rural communities. Nearly 40% of the state’s more than 1,200 school districts are classified as rural.

She remembers one child whose family had to drive to another county for behavioral health. The family lost coverage during the Medicaid unwinding, as pandemic provisions for automatic re-reenrollment expired. The child stopped taking mental health medication and ended up dropping out of school.

“The child wasn’t getting the medicine that they needed, because their family couldn’t afford it,” Freeny said. “The catalyst for that was a lack of Medicaid. That’s just one family.

“Now, you’re multiplying that.”

Family medicine physician Dr. Ian Bennett sees Medicaid patients at the Vallejo Family Health Services Center of Solano County in California’s Bay Area. The community health clinic serves patients from across the area’s rural farm communities and combines primary care with mental health care services, Bennett said.

“When our patients lose Medicaid, which we expect that they will, then we’ll have to continue to take them, and that will be quite a strain on the finances of that system,” Bennett said. The center could even close, he said.

“The folks who are having the most difficulty managing their lives — and that’s made worse by having depression or substance use disorder — are going to be the folks most likely to drop off,” said Bennett, a University of Washington mental health services researcher. “The impacts down the road are clearly going to be much worse for society as we have less people able to function.”

The psychiatric care landscape across Michigan’s rural western lower peninsula is already scarce, said Joseph “Chip” Johnston. He’s the executive director of the Centra Wellness Network, a publicly funded community mental health care provider for Manistee and Benzie counties. The network serves Medicaid and uninsured patients from high-poverty communities.

“I used to have psychiatric units close by as an adjunct to my service,” he said. “And they’ve all closed. So, now the closest [psychiatric bed] for a child, for example, is at least two hours away.”

Those facilities are also expensive. A one-night stay in an inpatient psychiatric facility can be anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 a night, he said.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.