Sen. Cassidy says he’s “very concerned” about possible hepatitis B vaccine schedule change – CBS News

Report on Proposed Changes to U.S. Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Schedule and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

• A potential revision to the United States’ infant hepatitis B vaccination schedule is under review by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP).
• Senator Bill Cassidy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has voiced strong opposition to this change, citing public health risks and a potential reversal of progress made in disease prevention.
• This policy debate directly impacts the advancement of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Public Health Implications and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

Combating Communicable Diseases (Target 3.3)

The current hepatitis B vaccination protocol is a critical tool in the effort to combat communicable diseases, a core objective of SDG Target 3.3. The debate highlights the importance of maintaining effective public health interventions.

• Senator Cassidy, a physician, emphasized that the recommended hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth has been instrumental in public health success.
• The existing schedule has led to a decrease in the incidence of chronic hepatitis B by 20,000 cases over the last two decades.
• Altering this proven strategy could jeopardize progress toward the global goal of combating hepatitis.

Ensuring Access to Essential Vaccines (Target 3.8)

The universal administration of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth is a cornerstone of achieving universal health coverage and ensuring access to essential medicines, as outlined in SDG Target 3.8.

• The vaccine is described as safe and established, representing a quality and effective essential medicine for infants.
• Senator Cassidy’s position is that any policy change appears to disregard the epidemiological basis for the current recommendation, potentially undermining access to a vital preventative health service.
• The success of the current program, which has significantly lowered the incidence of hepatitis B, is presented as a reason to continue, not curtail, the existing recommendations.

Institutional Governance and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

Role of Advisory and Legislative Bodies

The situation illustrates the complex interplay between expert advisory panels, executive departments, and legislative oversight, which is fundamental to the functioning of strong and accountable institutions as envisioned in SDG 16.

1. The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is scheduled to meet and potentially vote on the vaccine recommendations.
2. Senator Cassidy has previously challenged the ACIP and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on vaccine-related matters, calling for postponements of meetings amid changes in panel membership and CDC leadership.
3. Despite previously providing a key vote for Secretary Kennedy’s confirmation based on “serious commitments,” Senator Cassidy’s current stance represents a public disagreement on a critical health policy issue.

Upholding Evidence-Based Policy

A central theme of the debate is the necessity of grounding public health policy in scientific evidence to ensure institutional effectiveness and public trust.

• Senator Cassidy argues that a potential change is being driven by “people who don’t understand the epidemiology of hepatitis B.”
• He suggests that the low incidence of the disease, a direct result of the successful vaccination program, may be creating a false sense of security, leading to a proposal to “rest on our laurels.”

Conclusion: Upholding Progress Towards Global Health Goals

• The ongoing discussion surrounding the infant hepatitis B vaccine schedule is a critical test of the United States’ commitment to established public health principles that align with the Sustainable Development Goals.
• Maintaining the current, successful vaccination strategy is presented as essential for continued progress on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by combating communicable diseases and ensuring access to essential vaccines.
• The debate also underscores the importance of strong, evidence-based decision-making within public health institutions (SDG 16) to protect and advance the health of the population.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Explanation: The entire article is centered on public health, specifically the prevention of a communicable disease through vaccination. The discussion revolves around the hepatitis B vaccine schedule for infants, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing disease incidence, and the role of advisory panels in making public health recommendations. This directly aligns with SDG 3’s objective to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Senator Cassidy’s statement, “I want to make America healthy, and you don’t start by stopping recommendations that have made us substantially healthier,” encapsulates the essence of this goal.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.3: End epidemics of communicable diseases

   • Explanation: This target aims to “by 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.” The article’s primary subject is the strategy to combat hepatitis B. Senator Cassidy explicitly mentions the success of the current vaccination program in fighting the disease, stating that because of the vaccine, “we have decreased incidence of chronic hepatitis B.”

2. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage

   • Explanation: This target calls for achieving “universal health coverage, including… access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.” The article discusses the hepatitis B vaccine, which is an essential medicine. The debate over the “recommended hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth” is a debate about ensuring access to a critical and effective health service for all infants to prevent disease. The Senator’s emphasis on the vaccine being “safe” and “established” further connects to the quality aspect of this target.

3. Target 3.b: Support research and development of vaccines and medicines

   • Explanation: This target focuses on supporting “the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases… [and] provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines.” While the article does not discuss the R&D process itself, it deals with the crucial subsequent step: the implementation and maintenance of a successful vaccination program based on that R&D. The concern about changing the vaccine schedule is rooted in the desire to continue leveraging the success of this established medical tool, which is a core principle of Target 3.b.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 3.3.4: Hepatitis B incidence per 100,000 population

   • Explanation: The article provides a direct, quantifiable measure of progress related to this indicator. Senator Cassidy states, “we have decreased incidence of chronic hepatitis B by 20,000 people over the last two decades.” This figure, while not a per capita rate, is a direct measurement of the reduction in disease incidence, which is what this indicator is designed to track.

2. Indicator 3.b.1: Proportion of the population covered by all vaccines included in their national programme

   • Explanation: This indicator is implied in the discussion about the “hepatitis B vaccine schedule for infants” and the “recommended hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth.” The existence and debate around a national recommendation schedule imply a system for tracking and promoting vaccine coverage. The Senator’s concern about changing the schedule suggests a fear that doing so could negatively impact the proportion of infants receiving the vaccine, thereby affecting the progress measured by this indicator.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cbsnews.com