Health

(NEW YORK) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee is set to meet Thursday and Friday to discuss the childhood vaccine schedule, adjuvants and contaminants, and the hepatitis B vaccine.

It marks the third meeting this year of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) since Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all 17 members, replacing them with his own hand-selected picks, many of whom have expressed vaccine-skeptic views.

This is also the first meeting since the chair of the ACIP, Martin Kulldorff — a former Harvard Medical School professor — accepted a permanent role at HHS. Pediatric cardiologist and former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon Dr. Kirk Milhoan will chair the committee during the upcoming meeting.

Milhoan is a fellow with the Independent Medical Alliance, a group that has advocated for unproven treatments for COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

A draft agenda posted online indicates the ACIP will discuss and vote on recommendations around the hepatitis B vaccine on day one and discuss the childhood vaccine schedule on day two.

“I think every single thing on that agenda is concerning,” Dr. Richard Besser, resident and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and acting director of the CDC during the administration of former President Barack Obama, told ABC News. “We have an administration [that] seems hellbent on undermining people’s trust in vaccination.”

Hepatitis B vaccine

Since the new ACIP members were installed, the committee has recommended against flu vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal — despite public health experts saying there is no evidence that low doses of thimerosal in vaccines cause harm — and has narrowed existing recommendations for the combined MMRV shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.

The first day of the meeting will include presentations and discussions about the hepatitis B vaccine.

The agenda also lists a scheduled vote and, although it’s not clear what will be voted on, experts believe the universal hepatitis B vaccine dose given at birth will be at issue.

The CDC currently recommends that the first dose of the three-dose hepatitis B vaccine be given to babies within 24 hours of birth. Doctors have said the universal birth dose recommendation has virtually eliminated hepatitis B among babies in the U.S.

However, earlier this year, Kulldorff questioned whether it was “wise” to administer shots “to every newborn before leaving the hospital.” Separately, Kennedy has falsely linked the hepatitis B vaccine to autism.

Some experts believe the panel will vote to either delay or remove the decades-long recommendation that newborns be vaccinated against hepatitis B.

“I am concerned that the committee is going to attempt to minimize the harm resulting from any changes to this long-standing recommendation,” Dr. Fiona Havers, a former CDC official who worked on vaccine policy and led the CDC’s tracking of hospitalizations from COVID-19 and RSV, told ABC News.

“They’re going to say that there’s no need to vaccinate babies at birth because you can screen mothers and only vaccinate babies born to patients who test positive or whose status is unknown,” she continued.

Havers said only vaccinating high-risk babies was the policy in the U.S. before the universal birth dose was implemented, but it was changed after doctors saw that babies and children continued to be infected with hepatitis B.

Additionally, babies infected with hepatitis B are at risk for chronic infection as well as liver disease, liver failure and even liver cancer.

“Babies can be infected not only by their mother if she has hepatitis B, but also by caregivers or others in the community who may not know that they have hepatitis B and any change to the routine recommendation means that we will see an increase in hepatitis B infections in infants and children,” Havers said.

She added, “Any hepatitis B infections that occur because a child wasn’t vaccinated at birth are an avoidable tragedy. We will start seeing more children living with a lifelong incurable infection that can lead to death from cirrhosis or liver cancer.”

Childhood immunization schedule

Besser said he is particularly concerned about the second day, which includes a discussion about the childhood immunization schedule.

The draft agenda is scant on details aside from topics including CDC vaccine risk monitoring evaluation discussion, vaccine schedule history, vaccine schedule considerations and a discussion of the childhood/adolescent immunization schedule

Earlier this year, the ACIP formed two new work groups, one focusing on the cumulative effects of children and adolescents receiving all recommended vaccines on the schedule and another reviewing vaccines that haven’t been examined for more than seven years.

Kennedy has suggested that children receive too many vaccine doses “to be fully compliant” and that the number of doses children receive has increased from three doses during his childhood to 92 doses today.

Doctors previously told ABC News that children actually receive about 30 vaccine doses and that the number of available, recommended immunizations has grown since the first vaccines were recommended in the late 1940s, based on evolving science and manufacturing capacity.

Besser said he has not heard safety concerns about the schedule from vaccine experts, pediatricians, those who administer vaccines or patient advocacy groups.

“There had not been concerns raised around the immunization schedule and forming a group that is going to look at [the schedule] wholesale when the going-in presumption is that it’s not safe really, really worries me,” Besser said.

The panel will also discuss vaccine “adjuvants and contaminants,” according to the draft agenda.

In a 2023 interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Kennedy claimed aluminum adjuvants are neurotoxins and are associated with allergies, including food allergies.

The CDC says adjuvants are ingredients used in some vaccines to help boost the immune response and have been used safely in vaccines for more than 70 years.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — One in four Americans covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are considering going without health insurance if their monthly premiums double next year, a new KFF poll published Thursday finds.

Open enrollment for the ACA began last month, and many Americans experienced sticker shock upon receiving their annual notices and discovering their 2026 premiums would be increasing.

At the same time, enhanced premium tax credits under the ACA, which help lower the cost of monthly premiums for about 22 million Americans, are set to expire at the end of the year, and it’s unclear if Congress will take action to extend them.

The survey, which included a nationally representative sample of 1,350 U.S. adults between ages 18 and 64 and was conducted during early to mid-November, found that many Americans are reconsidering coverage on the ACA marketplaces.

“What we’re really interested in is understanding how marketplace enrollees are thinking about their decisions around coverage in 2026 … and so we wanted to actually hear from the people that were being directly impacted by this,” Ashley Kirzinger, director of survey methodology at KFF, told ABC News.

The survey found that one in three people covered under the ACA said they would “very likely” shop for a cheaper plan if their premium payments doubled, or if they currently don’t pay a premium and would have to pay $50 a month.

Kirzinger said the finding that one in four Americans would “very likely” forego insurance if faced with the same scenario is concerning.

“One of the things that the Affordable Care Act did was decrease our uninsurance rate in this country,” she said. “And so this could have major implications and major consequences as more people become uninsured for the first time in a decade.”

“And so, it’s not that they want to go without coverage. It’s that that may be the only option available to them,” Kirzinger added.

‘We have to judge the value of our health’

One of the survey respondents, Jon, 38, from Florida, who withheld his last name due to privacy reasons, said his family needs a health insurance plan on the marketplace that has good coverage because his wife has an autoimmune disorder.

The monthly premium — which covers Jon, his wife and their two children — is currently $2,000 per month and is going up to $2,500 per month next year.

“Having health insurance is important,” he told ABC News. “We’re one accident from not being financially okay, one accident away from not being able to cover the cost of food, daily expenses.”

Jon said that his family is considering a plan next year that would lower the cost of the monthly premium but would raise their copay for doctor’s visits and emergency room visits

“Now we have to judge what the value of our health and nobody should have to judge the value of that,” he said.

The survey also found that 58% of enrollees, or six in 10 Americans, say they could not afford an annual increase of just $300 per year without significantly disrupting their household finances.

An additional 20% said they would not be able to afford a $1,000 per year increase without disrupting their finances.

If total health care costs — including premiums, deductibles and other expenses increase by $1,000 next year, about 67% of marketplace enrollees said they would likely cut down on daily household needs and 41% said they would likely skip or delay other bills, according to the survey.

‘Our most difficult monthly cost’

More than half of ACA policyholders, or 54%, said they expect the cost of their health insurance coverage next year to “increase a lot more than usual,” with one in four saying it will “increase a little more than usual,” the survey found.

Another survey respondent, Venus, 27, from Kentucky, who withheld her last name due to privacy reasons, told ABC News it’s currently difficult to pay for the cost of her and her husband’s monthly health insurance premiums.

“Mainly because we only have one income and we have to pay for two health insurances for people with two different chronic illnesses,” she said. “It’s our most difficult monthly cost to pay.”

Venus explained that because they need an insurance plan with a higher deductible, their premium is lower, but out-of-pocket costs are higher.

She and her husband pay about $200 each month, and their monthly premium is expected to increase $90, which will eat into their monthly budget.

If premiums doubled, she said she and her husband would have to consider going without insurance.

“I don’t even have the words for that,” she said, “Paying for insulin out-of-pocket, I just couldn’t imagine.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Children who have smartphones by age 12 are at higher risk of lack of sleep, obesity and depression, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

What’s more, researchers found that the earlier a child received a smartphone, the greater their risk of developing these conditions.

Dr. Ran Barzilay, lead author of the study and a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told ABC News that many experts suggest parents should postpone the age at which children receive their first smartphone.

Barzilay said he and his colleagues wanted to examine whether not delaying smartphone use by children would lead to negative health outcomes. He also had a personal motivation behind the study.

“I have a nine-year-old who wants a phone, and I think [whether to get them a smartphone] is a question that is relevant for every parent of a kid going into adolescence, even before adolescence,” said Barzilay, who’s also an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The study team – comprised of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania; University of California, Berkeley; and Columbia University – looked at data from more than 10,500 participants in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which is an ongoing study assessing brain development in children throughout adolescence.

Researchers analyzed data on children between ages 9 and 16, collected from 2016 to 2022, to test how smartphone ownership and the age at which a child or teen received their first smartphone affected their health outcomes.

The team found that compared to 12-year-olds who didn’t own a smartphone, those who did had a 1.3 times higher risk of depression, a 1.4 times higher risk of obesity, and a 1.6 times higher risk of insufficient sleep.

Additionally, the earlier the age at which a child received a smartphone, the greater the risk of developing the problems increased – by about 10% for each year earlier in age, starting as young as age 4 – compared to kids who received a device later or not at all.

The study also found that children aged 13 who did not have a smartphone at age 12 but acquired one within the last year also had worse mental health outcomes and poor sleep. This held true even when the researchers controlled for those factors.

“This was quite surprising, I must say,” Barzilay said. “I mean, we designed the study with a question in mind to try and test it, but to find it was quite compelling.”

Barzilay said that while the study only proves association, not causation, it adds to a growing body of evidence linking smartphone use among children to adverse health outcomes.

In a longitudinal review of studies by the American Psychological Association, the emphasis is not only to cut down on screentime – which is linked to socioemotional problems in children – but also to improve the quality and social interactions through screentime.

The team behind the new study, published in Pediatric,s recommended that parents, children and pediatricians have a thoughtful discussion to determine whether children are ready for a phone.

Barzilay said the study results aren’t meant to put blame on parents who gave their kids smartphones at age 12 or younger, noting that his older two children received smartphones prior to age 12.

He added that smartphones do have some benefits, such as increasing connectivity and access to information. However, Barzilay said parents can implement some rules to limit the potential harm smartphone use can cause. Those rules could include not allowing kids to use them in their bedroom at night, and making sure that their children participate in activities that do not require phone use.

As for Barzilay’s nine-year-old who wants a phone, he said they’re “not getting a phone anytime soon. Clear decision.”

 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Cases of norovirus are rising across the United States, doubling over the last few months, according to updated data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Nearly 14% of tests came back positive for norovirus during the most recent week ending Nov. 15, compared to roughly 7% about three months ago.

Test positivity is a metric used to identify how many people are confirmed to have norovirus after an illness is suspected.

Health experts have said that, like other measurements, test positivity is imperfect as it depends on the number of tests that are ordered, which can vary.

Last December saw a record-breaking rate of norovirus cases in the U.S. with nearly 25% of tests coming back positive. Cases had been trending down since then but have begun to rise in recent weeks, CDC data shows.

Electronic health records data from Epic Research show that Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming are some of the states currently experiencing the highest number of norovirus cases. Emergency department visits have been on the rise since July, Epic Research data shows. 

Norovirus is a highly contagious virus that is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis, which is an inflammation of the inside lining of the gastrointestinal tract.

Although it’s often referred to as the “stomach bug” or “stomach flu,” norovirus illness is not related to influenza.

Norovirus is the leading cause of foodborne illness in the U.S., causing 58% of foodborne illnesses each year, and responsible for about 2,5000 outbreaks annually, according to the CDC.

The most common symptoms are nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhea. Patients, however, can also experience fever, headaches and body aches.

Typically, an infected person will develop symptoms between 12 to 48 hours after being infected. However, norovirus typically resolves quickly and, in most healthy adults, lasts one to three days, according to the CDC.

Health experts say the best way to prevent getting norovirus is to wash hands with warm soap and water for 20 seconds. Hand sanitizer alone does not work well against norovirus.

The CDC says people should wash their hands after using the toilet or changing diapers as well as when eating, preparing or handling food.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — As measles continues to spread across the United States, questions have emerged about whether the country will retain its measles elimination status.

The U.S. is currently experiencing the highest number of measles cases reported in more than three decades, in large part due to an outbreak in western Texas that infected more than 700 people and spread to New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Meanwhile, an outbreak in Arizona and Utah currently shows no signs of slowing down and a separate outbreak in South Carolina has sent dozens of students into quarantine.

If spread of the virus continues into late January, it will mean the U.S. has seen a year of continuous transmission, which could lead to a loss of the country’s elimination status. Measles would once again be considered endemic or constantly circulating.

The threat of the U.S. losing its elimination status is looming after Canada lost its measles elimination status following a struggle to contain a year-long measles outbreak, public health experts told ABC News.

“I do think that the likelihood that we’re going to lose status, especially if things continue the way that they’re going, is I think pretty high,” Dr. Tony Moody, a professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at Duke University Medical Center, told ABC News.

State of measles in the U.S.

As of Wednesday, there have been 1,753 confirmed cases across 42 states this year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

There have been 45 outbreaks, so far this year compared to 16 outbreaks all last year, CDC data shows.

Additionally, 92% of cases have been among those who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, according to the CDC.

There have been three measles deaths this year — the first fatalities due to the disease in a decade — including among two unvaccinated school-aged children in Texas and one unvaccinated adult in New Mexico.

The CDC currently recommends that people receive two doses of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second between 4 and 6 years old. One dose is 93% effective, and two doses are 97% effective against measles, the CDC says.

However, CDC data shows vaccination rates have been lagging in recent years. During the 2024-25 school year, 92.5% of kindergartners received the MMR vaccine. This is lower than the 92.7% seen the previous school year and the 95.2% seen in the 2019-20 school year, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even in states with high MMR vaccine uptake, pockets of unvaccinated or under-vaccinated communities can lead to rapid spread.

For example, in Texas, 94.3% of kindergartners were up to date on their MMR vaccine for the 2023-24 school year, CDC data shows. However, in Gaines County — the epicenter of this year’s outbreak — 17.6% of kindergartners were exempt from at least one vaccine during the 2023-24 school year, one of the highest exemption rates in the state, according to state health data.

“It’s kind of like you have a very dry forest, so any spark that comes in can burn down the entire forest,” Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told ABC News. “That’s what’s happening, which is fewer people being vaccinated, as evidenced by the drop in in people entering kindergarten.”

He said one case of measles is like a spark that quickly turns into a blaze as it spread through an unvaccinated community “and that’s why it’s hard to put out the fire.”

How loss of status is determined

The loss of status is determined by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO, an agency of the U.N. that oversees international health in the Americas.

An independent body of experts established by the PAHO — known as the Measles, Rubella, and Congenital Rubella Syndrome Elimination Regional Monitoring and Re-Verification Commission (RVC) — meets at least once a year to monitor and re-verify measles and rubella elimination among countries in the Americas.

A person familiar with how PAHO determines loss of elimination status told ABC News that there would have to be compelling evidence that there has been continuous spread of measles in the U.S. since January, when the first cases were reported in Texas and that other outbreaks may trace back to the Texas outbreak.

The person said the committee will get together in mid-2026 to look at the data, write its next report and formally submit it to the PAHO for review. The annual meeting will likely take place in late 2026, unless a previously unplanned meeting is convened beforehand.

“The RVC holds annual meetings with all member states, conducts visits to priority countries, reviews national sustainability reports, and issues recommendations to the Director of PAHO,” a spokesperson for PAHO told ABC News. “It may also convene extraordinary meetings with member states to provide recommendations on specific topics or to follow up on outbreak situations. At this time, no extraordinary meeting has been scheduled for next year specifically to assess the U.S. or Mexico situation, but such a meeting could be convened if the epidemiological situation warrants.”

Between April 2025 and October 2025, Mexico has seen 4,550 cases, according to the WHO, which could also lead to the loss of its elimination status.

Moody explained that the U.S. having measles elimination status, which it received in 2000, is less of a formal declaration and more of a statement that a county has a relatively low number of cases and no sustained transmission.

Loss of status would similarly be a statement that a country has sustained transmission and that the virus is constantly present, he said.

“What does it mean from a public health perspective, or a parent’s perspective, it means that we have a higher risk for seeing transmission, and that if someone goes to a place where there is sustained transmission, there’s kind of an increased risk and, truthfully, you can pick it up just about anywhere,” Moody said.

Canada’s loss of elimination status

Earlier this month, the Public Health Agency of Canada said it was informed of the elimination status loss by PAHO after more than 12 months of continuous measles transmission. Canada’s outbreak began in late October 2024, and the county has seen more than 5,200 confirmed and probable cases since then, data from the health agency shows.

As a result, the Americas region lost elimination status as well.

Canada can re-establish its measles elimination status if measles transmission related to the current outbreak is “interrupted” for at least 12 months, according to the county’s health officials.

“Given that we share one of the longest borders in the world with Canada. It’s not as if there’s some magic barrier between U.S. and Canada,” Moody said. “If there’s transmission in Canada, we’re going to get it in the United States. …  I’m not saying that Canada has put us at risk. We’ve kind of put ourselves at risk but … I do see it as being a highly likely thing that we’re going to see continued transmission.”

Canada will present and implement an action plan under PAHO’s regional framework to increase immunization coverage, reinforce surveillance systems and ensure rapid outbreak response to stop spread. This shows what the U.S. would likely experience if it lost its status.

“If we lose our status, it’ll be hard to regain it,” Chin-Hong said, noting how many workers have been laid off at HHS that might have helped control large outbreaks. “Not only loss of expertise, but just loss of the workforce in general, the people who go out and do the surveillance and contain the epidemic by vaccination efforts and all that. … It just denotes how fragile public health gains are. In general, it’s easy to lose it and hard to get it back.”

How to prevent further spread

Public health experts told ABC News there are several steps that can be taken to help control the spread of measles in the U.S. including increasing funding to public health for monitoring and surveillance as well as spreading awareness about how dangerous measles can be.

However, they add that the best way to stop the spread is through vaccination, both to protect yourself and the most vulnerable individuals.

“We can’t control the people who are unable to get vaccines because they’re being treated for cancer, because they are born with an immunodeficiency,” Dr. Aaron Milstone, pediatric director of infection prevention at Johns Hopkins Health System, told ABC News. “What we can control is everyone else in the community who is eligible for a vaccine, who does not take it, and that’s the reason that measles is spreading, in part, because the herd protection from our community has gone down.”

As an extra step, public health agencies have previously recommended early MMR vaccination for infants living in outbreak areas or traveling internationally.

This would result in three doses overall: an early dose between age 6 months and 11 months and then the two regularly scheduled doses at age 1 and between ages 4 and 6.

Milstone said the recommendation to give a child their first MMR dose at age one was under the assumption that they likely would not be exposed to measles before then and that antibodies passed in utero would help protect them during their first year of life.

Now, with the continuous spread being seen, “are we going to have to rethink our recommendations for when to vaccinate kids in the U.S.?” Milstone said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court is deciding whether to revive more than 500 lawsuits filed by parents who claimed their children’s autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was caused by prenatal exposure to Tylenol.

The lawsuits were dismissed in December 2023 by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote after finding that the plaintiffs’ scientific experts did not provide credible evidence linking use of Tylenol, or its active ingredient acetaminophen, to autism or ADHD.

Cote wrote in her ruling that “the unstructured approach adopted by the plaintiffs’ experts permitted cherry-picking, allowed a results-driven analysis, and obscured the complexities, inconsistencies, and weaknesses in the underlying data.”

However, in a hearing this week, two judges of a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan suggested some of the experts’ testimony may have been admissible and that the lawsuits were prematurely dismissed.

“I’m having trouble understanding why the district court was correct to say that this just is nonsense. This is something that no one should hear,” Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said during the hearing earlier this week. “It just goes out the window, when it seems to me that you have a reputable scientist explaining why each of these judgment calls was made.”

Meanwhile, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi implied that the cases could have gone to a jury.

“It seems to me you’re constantly coming back to where you began, which is [the experts] didn’t show that there was a causal link, but a causal link cannot be shown,” Calabresi said. “All that matters is if people bring in evidence, so that then juries or courts may say, ‘This goes one way or the other.'”

The topic has been in the headlines since the Trump administration announced in September that the use of Tylenol during pregnancy may be linked to an increased risk of autism and that pregnant women should limit their use, contradicting medical evidence.

Studies on this question have not shown a direct cause and effect. Some studies point to a possible link, but major medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have evaluated the evidence and continue to recommend acetaminophen as the safest pain reliever during pregnancy in consultation with your OB-GYN.

At the time of Trump’s announcement, federal officials cited an August 2025 meta-analysis from researchers at Mt. Sinai, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Heath, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and UMass Lowell that found prenatal exposure to acetaminophen may be associated with an increase in rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and ADHD, in children.

However, an April 2024 study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in JAMA, found that using acetaminophen during pregnancy was not linked to an increased risk of autism, ADHD or intellectual disability in children.

Additionally, a review published earlier this month in the BMJ similarly found no clear evidence of a link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism or ADHD in children.

Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the makers of Tylenol –Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue — claiming that they deceptively marketed the over-the-counter medication to pregnant women despite alleged links to autism and other disorders.

Johnson & Johnson sold the drug for decades and its consumer health division spinoff, Kenvue Inc., has been selling the drug since 2023.  Multinational consumer goods and personal care corporation Kimberly Clark recently announced plans to acquire Kenvue.

Kenvue has defended against claims that its products, or its active ingredient, is linked to autism.

In a statement to ABC News in September, the company said it believes research shows that acetaminophen does not cause autism.

“We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers,” the statement read. “Acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their entire pregnancy. Without it, women face dangerous choices: suffer through conditions like fever that are potentially harmful to both mom and baby or use riskier alternatives.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a final version of its report on pediatric gender-affirming care on Wednesday, claiming it found “medical dangers posed to children,” which is receiving pushback from medical groups.

The report alleged that gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender-affirming surgeries — caused significant, long-term damage.

It comes after HHS published in May an early version of what it referred to as a “comprehensive review” of transgender care for children and teens, in which it called for a broader use of psychotherapy for young people with gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming medical interventions.

The HHS referred to the final version of the report as “peer-reviewed,” but some of those who reviewed the contents are researchers who have spoken against gender affirming care.

Some major medical groups have pushed back, stating that psychotherapy first is the standard approach in gender-affirming care and that additional care, such as hormonal therapies, only occurs after in-depth evaluations between patients and doctors.

The American Psychological Association (APA), which reviewed the report, argued it lacks transparency and that scientific research does not support the authors’ theories.

Experts in the gender-affirming care space questioned the validity of the findings, saying that studies have found that gender-affirming care is generally safe and that youth with gender dysphoria are typically evaluated, diagnosed and treated based on an individual assessment by qualified providers.

“This report does not add to the science. It adds to the noise around care for transgender young people, care that is provided by licensed clinicians according to a standard of care,” Kellan Baker, senior advisor for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank that provides research, insight and analysis on LGBTQ+ issues, told ABC News.

“That standard of care is based on the same comparable quality of evidence as care across any other area of medicine,” Baker continued. “There is nothing new or unusual about care for transgender young people except for the extraordinary degree of political antagonism that is being focused on this very, very small group of young people.”

In a press release on Wednesday, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, called the report “a turning point for American medicine,” adding that “we are committed to ensuring that science, not ideology, guides America’s medical research.”

David Aizuss, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees and Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released a joint statement on Wednesday.

“We reject characterizations of our approach to gender-affirming care as negligent or ideologically driven, and take particular issue with the false assertion that our members have committed ‘malpractice’ or betrayed their oath in any way,” the statement read.

“These claims, rooted in politics and partisanship, misrepresent the consensus of medical science, undermine the professionalism of physicians, and risk harming vulnerable young people and their families,” Aizuss and Kressly added.

The final version of the HHS report listed nine authors, all of whom have expressed skeptical views of, or have opposed, pediatric gender-affirming care.

The initial May report did not list the names of its authors to “help maintain the integrity of this process.” Critics at the time pointed out that this prevented readers from gauging whether the names were credible or had any conflicts of interest.

The disclosures in the final report show that at least six of the nine authors have financial interests or have spoken out extensively opposing gender affirming care.

This includes authors who have been paid to offer expert testimony on legislative efforts to ban pediatric gender medicine and have published papers critical of pediatric gender medicine, including claims that such care does not improve depression or suicidality among trans youth.

The report included 10 reviewers, including individual physicians and medical groups, some of whom praised the report as “scientifically sound” and said the main findings and conclusions are “correct.”

Other reviewers were critical, including the APA, which accused the authors of the report of cherry-picking which studies it used in its findings and not justifying why other studies were excluded. Additionally, it says key findings in studies that were relied on were unexplained or absent.

“While the HHS Report purports to be a thorough, evidence-based assessment of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, its underlying methodology lacks sufficient transparency and clarity for its findings to be taken at face value,” the APA wrote in its review, found in the report’s supplement.

In conclusion, the group wrote, “the report’s claims fall short of the standard of methodological rigor that should be considered a prerequisite for policy guidance in clinical care.”

In a response to the report, the Endocrine Society said in a statement to ABC News that mental health care is already part of treating transgender and gender-diverse youth with health care protocols requiring initial mental health support and evaluations.

However, they add that access to medication such as hormone therapy can be used in conversations between patients, their families and their doctors. They add that such care is also relatively rare.

“The use of puberty-delaying medication or hormone therapy remains rare and reflects a cautious approach as recommended in our guideline,” the statement read. “Fewer than one in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received either treatment during the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, according to a January 2025 study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. And our 2017 guidelines recommend against prescribing any medication for gender dysphoria before puberty starts.”

Gender-affirming care is supported by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the APA, and the Endocrine Society.

Studies have shown that many of the treatment options are generally safe and that care can have a positive impact on mental health, which psychotherapy alone cannot provide, experts said.

Some experts have questioned the significance of interventions on long-term mental health as well as the possibility of regret and point out potential risks to future fertility.

Additionally, systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland and the U.K. have resulted in the three countries restricting gender-affirming care. England’s National Health Service ended prescribing puberty blockers for minors experiencing gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials. Sweden and Finland have followed psychotherapy-first models. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The global rise of ultra-processed foods in diets worldwide poses a major public health threat, according to experts who published a series of papers in medical journal The Lancet.

The authors cite studies that show ultra-processed diets are linked to chronic health conditions like increased risk of becoming overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, chronic kidney disease and overall higher death rates. 

Common examples of ultra-processed foods include sugar-sweetened beverages, packaged snacks, instant soups, breakfast cereals, energy bars, mass-produced packaged breads, ready-to-eat meals, ice cream and pizza.

ABC News’ medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton investigated the state of America’s food supply including the consumption of ultra-processed foods and the potential risks to Americans’ health in a new “ABC News Live Prime” special “Gut Check: The Foods We Eat.”

Watch the segment on ABC News Live Prime on Wednesday, Nov. 19, at 8:30 p.m. ET. Available to stream on Disney+ and Hulu.

Sutton participated in an experiment at a high-tech laboratory at Virginia Tech where researchers monitored his blood work before and after eating ultra-processed foods. He also visited an American grocery store, comparing the ingredient lists of common food products with similar ones overseas in a French grocery store.

The special also takes viewers to the world’s largest food and science exposition in Chicago, where ingredient makers pitch food companies on their latest innovations. It’s a notable time for the industry, as the Trump administration continues to push food companies to remove additives, like synthetic dyes, from their products. 

The warning around the dangers of ultra-processed foods comes as the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement, popularized by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., grows nationwide.

About four in 10 parents consider themselves supporters of the MAHA movement, with support higher among Republicans and white parents, a Washington Post-KFF poll finds.

An overwhelming number of parents, regardless of their support of the MAHA movement, supported increased government regulations on dyes and chemical additives, highly processed foods and added sugars, the poll found. 

The authors of The Lancet paper, which was published on Tuesday, note that improving diets requires more than just a change in behavior.

Instead, they are calling for world policy reform with actions targeting the production, marketing and consumption of ultra-processed foods, as well as improving access to health food is needed, they note.

Americans consume over half of their daily calories from ultra-processed foods, on average, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Healthier eating should emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy and protein, the CDC says. Most Americans need to increase their intake of dietary fiber, calcium, vitamin D, and potassium, the agency notes.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Just 100 cigarettes over the course of someone’s life may be enough to raise their risk of heart disease and death, a new study suggests.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, who looked at the smoking habits of more than 300,000 adults for almost 20 years, found that men and women who smoked as few as two cigarettes daily had a 60% increased risk of death from any cause compared to those who never smoked.

Additionally, the smoking group had a 50% higher risk of heart disease, according to the study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine.

“Tobacco use is a very well-established risk factor for heart disease,” said Dr. Jennifer Miao, a cardiologist at Yale University and an ABC News Medical Unit fellow. “It really damages the blood vessel lining and it accelerates the development of plaques and coronary artery disease.” 

Smoking is also linked to heart rhythm issues, such as atrial fibrillation and stroke, Maio added.

Cutting back on cigarette use may not be enough to reverse the harm, the study found. Although current smokers had a higher risk of death than former smokers, former smokers still had an elevated risk of heart disease more than 20 years after they had kicked the habit, according to the study.

Data from the American Lung Association shows that adult smoking in the U.S. has dropped from about 42% in 1965 to roughly 12% in 2022 — a decline of more than 70%. 

However, the number of people smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day increased 85% during the same period. 

Americans should be counseled to quit smoking altogether rather than just cutting back, Dr. Erfan Tasdighi, co-author of the study and internal medicine physician at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, told ABC News.

“We actually have the evidenc. … to say that even less than one cigarette a day can increase different multiple cardiovascular outcomes, and it’s not something that’s clinically insignificant,” Tasdighi said.

Miao acknowledged how difficult it can be for patients to go completely smoke-free. 

“It’s very, very important for us as clinicians to acknowledge that it’s a lot easier said than done,” she said.

Miao suggested that physicians identify who is having a difficult time stopping tobacco use and get them connected with the appropriate resources and medical therapies available for smoking cessation efforts.

The benefit of quitting smoking is most substantial in the first ten years after quitting, the study suggested. However, researchers say it takes time for the body to recover and reach the level of someone who never smoked.

Tasdighi emphasized that this doesn’t mean cessation doesn’t have immediate effects.

“It’s important that people know that when they stop smoking, their risk goes down immediately and significantly,” he said.

Miao agreed, adding that the study’s most important takeaway is that “it’s important to quit smoking early on, and no amount of smoking is without risk and health consequences.”

It’s not just patients who should heed the results of this study, the authors stressed. Physicians should also consider changing the way they inquire about smoking because the number of packs someone smokes per year is not necessarily predictive of long-term health risks, they said. 

“Clinicians need a more nuanced approach that incorporates other ways to identify and quantify cigarette use, like smoking status and smoking intensity,” Miao said, noting that whether it’s smoking one cigarette a day or one a week, no amount of smoking is safe, and quitting remains the best thing someone can do for their health. 

To learn more about quitting smoking, call 1-800-QUIT-NOW or make an appointment with your health care provider.

Radhika Malhotra, MD, is an internal medicine-preventive medicine resident at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — A few South Carolina lawmakers are holding a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a near-total abortion ban that removes exceptions and could send anyone involved with termination of a pregnancy to prison for decades.

Currently, the state has a six-week abortion ban, signed into law in May 2023, with limited exceptions for rape and incest up to 12 weeks, for fetal anomalies and to save the life of the pregnant person.

However, S.323, also called the “Unborn Child Protection Action,” which is currently being debated in a state subcommittee, would repeal the rape, incest and fetal anomalies exceptions as well as make abortion a felony comparable to “the homicide of a person born alive,” which, if it clears a series of legislative hurdles, could send people who have an abortion to prison for up to 30 years.

If the bill clears the committee, there will be a few other legislative steps before it’s debated during the state legislature’s regular session.

Those who aid, abet or perform an abortion could also face up to three decades in prison.

Additionally, the bill would make it unlawful to possess abortion pills or provide information about an abortion, make it a felony to transport a minor out of state to obtain an abortion, change the definition of legal contraceptive, and redefine embryos as full legal persons, which opponents of the bill say could threaten IVF access.

Opponents argue the bill would be one of the strictest pieces of legislation limiting access to reproductive health care seen in the U.S. and could have far-reaching effects.

“If people think that there are exceptions here, I want to reiterate that there are none,” Amalia Luxardo, CEO of the nonprofit advocacy organization Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network (WREN), told ABC News. “There are none here. … Historically there have been exceptions when legislation like this comes down. And so, it really is, quite literally, the most extreme piece of legislation that we’ve seen in the [reproductive health care] space ever in this country. “

Luxardo said that WREN will be among the groups demonstrating at the state capitol on Tuesday as the bill is discussed during a second hearing of the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee.

The first hearing in October lasted several hours with dozens of people testifying during public comment. The hearing on Tuesday will not be open to the public, but people are able to watch a stream.

Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative council with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABC News that because the hearing is without public comment, it’s difficult for opponents to weigh in on why the bill is “problematic.”

However, she said advocates are continuing to put pressure on lawmakers by having constituents call up their representatives, sharing personal stories of people who have struggled to get abortion care in harrowing situations and legal reasonings behind why some consider the bill unconstitutional.

Chowdhry added that she is concerned that, if the bill passes, lawmakers in other states could replicate the legislation with similar language and penalties.

“We have seen time and time again, when very restrictive legislation sees the light of day, and if it potentially has a chance of moving through the legislature and getting signed and getting enacted, other hostile states very often follow suit,” she said. “Once we see a bill get enacted, we see that kind of momentum get pushed forward. It really opens the door for other states to do something similar.”

Luxardo agreed, adding that if the legislation passes, she believes it could deter providers from practicing in South Carolina.

The bill has also caused friction among anti-abortion rights groups, with some saying S.323 goes too far.

South Carolina Citizens for Life said that while it supports the current six-week ban, it opposes the criminalization of those who receive an abortion.

“Criminalizing women who have an abortion is inconsistent with our decades of work to legally protect both the unborn and the mother,” the statement reads. “Pro-lifers understand better than anyone else the desire to punish the purveyors of abortion who act callously and without regard to the dignity of human life. But turning women who have abortions into criminals, as S.323 does, is not the way.”

Other groups, such as Equal Protection South Carolina (EPSC), have supported the bill. EPSC stated it hopes legal equal protection in the bill can be expanded “for all pre-born babies beginning at fertilization.”

When asked for comment, EPSC pointed ABC News to a September statement.

“We are encouraged by the sentiment of the bill and the bill author’s passion to end abortion,” the group wrote. “The imposition of a criminal penalty in all parties involved in an abortion is a laudable departure from the approach traditionally taken by the Pro-Life establishment, which advocates for legislation providing total legal immunity to mothers who willfully murder their pre-born children.”

Co-sponsors of the bill, including state Sens. Richard Cash, Billy Garrett and Rex Rice, did not immediately return ABC News’ requests for comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.