NIH-NIAID/Image Point FR/BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The first U.S. case of a more severe strain of mpox without any recent travel history has been identified in California.
Health officials said this week that the case was confirmed in a Long Beach resident. The patient required hospitalization and is now isolating and recovering at home.
No other identifying details were provided about the patient, including name, age or sex.
While this is the seventh case of the more severe strain confirmed in the U.S this year, it is the first without known travel, according to local officials.
Officials say the risk to the general public is low and the health department is conducting an investigation, including working to identify the patient’s potential sources of exposure.
“We are taking this very seriously and ensuring our community and health care partners remain vigilant so we can prevent any more cases,” Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson said in a press release. “This underscores the importance of continued surveillance, early response and vaccination.”
There are two types of the virus that cause mpox: clade I and clade II, with clade roughly meaning they are descended from a common ancestor organism. Clade I has historically been associated with severe illness and death, and is endemic to parts of central and western Africa, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Clade II was responsible for a large outbreak that peaked in summer 2022, leading to more than 100,000 cases in 122 countries, including more than 30,000 cases in the U.S.
The less severe strain in the U.S. has continued circulating at low levels and has remained relatively stable.
Parts of Africa have been dealing with sustained person-to-person spread of the more severe strain of mpox. All six previously confirmed cases of the more severe strain in the U.S. have been among people who had recently traveled to areas associated with the outbreak in central and eastern Africa, according to the CDC.
In November 2024, California reported the first domestic case of the more severe strain in a traveler from Africa who experienced mild illness.
People with mpox, which was formerly known as monkeypox, often get a rash that can be located on hands, feet, chest, face, mouth or near the genitals, the CDC said.
Most people with mpox typically recover within two to four weeks without specific treatments.
Currently, the JYNNEOS vaccine, a two-dose vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent smallpox and mpox, is the only vaccine being used in the U.S.
The JYNNEOS vaccine is recommended for adults at high risk for mpox, which includes people who are gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men and have recent or upcoming risk factors like multiple sexual partners, intimate contact with someone who may have mpox, or sex at commercial venues.
ABC News’ Mary Kekatos contributed to this report.
(NASSUA COUNTY, N.Y.) — The New York State Department of Health has confirmed a case of locally acquired chikungunya on Long Island, marking the first case of the virus reported to be locally acquired in New York and the first locally acquired case to be reported in the United States since 2019.
Laboratory testing at the department’s Wadsworth Center confirmed the case in Nassau County on Long Island, according to health officials.
“An investigation suggests that the individual likely contracted the virus following a bite from an infected mosquito,” officials said. “While the case is classified as locally acquired based on current information, the precise source of exposure is not known.”
Chikungunya is a mosquito-borne disease most common in tropical and subtropical regions and symptoms include fever and joint pain, headache, muscle pain, joint swelling, or rash, officials said.
The disease cannot be spread directly from one person to another, authorities said, and the risk to the public is low.
The illness is rarely fatal, and most patients recover within a week, though some may experience persistent joint pain, authorities continued.
“People at higher risk for severe disease include newborns infected around the time of birth, adults aged 65 and older, and individuals with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease,” according to the New York State Department of Health.
The Aedes albopictus mosquito, which is known to transmit chikungunya, is present in parts of downstate New York and local transmission can occur when an A. albopictus mosquito bites an infected traveler, becomes infected and bites another person.
“Our Wadsworth Center has confirmed this test result, which is the first known case of locally acquired Chikungunya in New York State. Given the much colder nighttime temperatures, the current risk in New York is very low.” State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said. “We urge everyone to take simple precautions to protect themselves and their families from mosquito bites.”
In 2025, there have been three additional chikungunya cases outside New York City that were all linked to international travel to regions with active chikungunya infections, according to health officials.
“Routine mosquito testing conducted by the Department’s Wadsworth Center and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) has not detected chikungunya virus in any New York mosquito samples to date,” said the New York State Department of Health.
Health officials said that all New Yorkers should take precautions to reduce the risk of mosquito bites by using EPA-registered insect repellents, wearing long sleeves, long pants and socks outdoors when possible, removing standing water around homes, such as in flowerpots, buckets and gutters, and by repairing or patching holes in window and door screens to keep mosquitoes out.
(WASHINGTON) — As the federal government shutdown enters its tenth day, one major health care issue has continued to be a sticking point: insurance subsidies.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, or premium tax credits, help lower or eliminate the out-of-pocket cost of monthly premiums for those who purchase insurance through the health insurance marketplace.
Eligibility for the subsidies can include factors such as household income and geographic location.
The subsidies were part of the original Affordable Care Act passed during the Obama administration and were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the amount of financial assistance to those who were already eligible and to expand eligibility to more people. They are set to expire at the end of the year.
Republicans have said the expansions from the pandemic era went too far and have tried to persuade Democrats to fund a temporary spending bill that doesn’t address the expiring ACA subsidies, with promises of discussing ways to continue the subsidies later.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., referred to the Dec. 31 deadline to extend subsidies as being far away.
“That’s a Dec. 31 issue,” he said during a news conference earlier this week. “There are lots of conversations and deliberations and discussions right now, even bipartisan amongst members about necessary changes that would have to be made, pretty dramatic changes to even have that considered on the floor. But look, I’m not going to forecast the outcome of that.”
However, Democrats say that with open enrollment for ACA plans beginning Nov. 1, the subsidies not being approved could be detrimental for millions of American families.
“The Democrats have said that their position on getting out of the shutdown period is that they would want to both extend and make permanent these enhanced marketplace premium tax credits,” Melinda Buntin, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, told ABC News.
“The thing at the very top of the list is these subsidies because they are so salient and they will directly affect the pocketbooks of so many millions of Americans,” Buntin said.
Buntin said that if open enrollment begins and these subsidies are not approved and loaded into the enrollment systems, people are likely to see their premiums go up.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that, without an extension, gross benchmark premiums could increase by 4.3% in 2026 and by 7.7% in 2027 for those on marketplace plans.
A KFF analysis last month found that people who buy insurance from the marketplace, and receive financial assistance, would see their premiums rise by about 114% on average, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026.
There is broad support for the tax credits. A recent KFF poll, which was fielded just before the government shut down on Oct. 1, found that 78% of Americans support extending the enhanced tax credits, including more than half of Republicans and of “Make America Great Again” supporters.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed on Thursday the need to extend tax credits, stating, “[U]nless we extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, tens of millions of Americans are about to experience dramatically increased premiums, co-pays and deductibles by thousands of dollars per year.”
Buntin says this could affect many Americans, but particularly those who live in states where Medicaid was not expanded and buying insurance on the marketplace is their only option.
Naomi Zewde, a fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and assistant professor of health policy and management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, told ABC News that working low-income families and adults will be affected if the ACA subsidies are not approved.
“Mainly those who don’t get insurance through their job, who make too much for Medicaid but not enough to pay [about] $600-plus per month for a plan with a two-to-three-thousand-dollar deductible,” she said.
However, James Blumstein, university distinguished professor of constitutional law and health law and policy at Vanderbilt University School of Law, told ABC News that even if the subsidies lapse and the Nov. 1 deadline arrives, a deal could be worked out to retroactively fix the issue.
He added that he believes congressional Democrats and Republicans could also come up with a deal that saves the ACA subsidies but doesn’t keep the full expansions that were offered during the pandemic.
“I think the leverage for the Democrats will diminish,” he said. “Republicans have passed a continuing resolution so that this issue is going to come back up five or six weeks again.”
Blumstein continued, “Democrats will have leverage again in five or six weeks and I think that whether this goes into the period of new enrollment or not, that can all be fixed in the deal. In other words, if the time lapses that can be overcome by the subsidies coming a little bit later.”
Earlier this week, President Donald Trump indicated that he was negotiating with Democrats on health care policy and that he was open to making a deal on health care subsidies in an attempt to reopen the government.
“We have a negotiation going on with the Democrats that could lead to good things, and I’m talking about good things with regard to health care,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
“If we made the right deal, I’d make a deal. Sure,” Trump said in reference to making a deal to approve ACA subsidies.
In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer denied that the White House was negotiating with Democrats.
Trump later walked back his willingness to make a deal, writing on social media that he would work with Democrats as long as the government is reopened first.
Democratic leaders have said they are not willing to vote to reopen the government unless Republicans negotiate on health care demands, while Republicans have signaled unwillingness to negotiate on health care policy unless the government is reopened — an effective stalemate.
“Republicans are saying that we should have what is referred to as a clean bill, just continue the government operations as they were, without extending these subsidies, and then once we’ve got that, then we can come back and we can talk about things like extending the subsidies,” Buntin said. “Democrats are seen so far unwilling to agree to that, which I think represents a sort of breakdown in normal process.”
She continued, “Democrats are seeing a political opening, because there are so many millions of people who depend on these subsidies to be able to afford health insurance, and there’s nothing like a deadline to use to get something you want.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told ABC News in a statement earlier this week that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown.
“Senate Democrats are choosing to keep the government shut down, putting major health programs at risk. They should do the right thing and vote to reopen the government,” the statement read.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. appears before the Senate Finance Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on September 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. The committee met to hear testimony on President Trump’s 2026 health care agenda. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hit back at an op-ed written by the most recent six surgeons general, who said they wanted to warn the U.S. about the dangers of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The op-ed, published in The Washington Post on Tuesday, called the health secretary’s policies and positions an “immediate and unprecedented” threat to the nation’s health.
In a statement to ABC News, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the doctors are the same officials “who presided over the decline in America’s public health.”
They “are now criticizing the first Secretary to confront it head-on,” the statement continued. “We remain committed to restoring trust, reforming broken health systems, and ensuring that every American has access to real choice in their health care.”
In the op-ed, the surgeons general referenced views held by Kennedy, including repeating the false claim that childhood vaccines cause autism and misrepresenting risks of COVID-19 vaccines, despite studies that found the shots prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths.
The “nation’s doctors” as surgeon generals are commonly described because they give public health guidance and warnings to the country, also pointed to decisions made by Kennedy — including touting unproven treatments as measles spread in the U.S.
Among the authors was Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as surgeon general for most of President Donald Trump’s first term, including the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a post on X sharing a link to the op-ed, Adams referred to disinformation, the loss of trust in doctors and the destruction of public health as deadlier than cigarettes.
“Neither I nor the other five living Surgeons General wanted to call for this unprecedented warning- but all felt compelled by duty to do so,” he wrote.
Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as surgeon general under President George W. Bush from 2002 to 2006 and another author of the op-ed, told ABC News he is urging Americans to “disregard” Kennedy’s vaccine rhetoric.
“On behalf of the people, vaccines are safe, you should consult with your health provider, get the best information, get your child vaccinated, and unfortunately, disregard what you’re hearing from Secretary Kennedy and many of his political appointees who continue to provide mis and disinformation to confuse the public,” he said.
The op-ed comes about a month after seven former directors and two former acting directors of the CDC wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, accusing Kennedy of endangering the health of Americans.
ABC News’ Meghan Mistry and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.
Stock image of stethoscope. ATU Images/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — A fast-rising form of breast cancer that’s harder to detect on mammograms now makes up more than one in ten cases in the United States, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Invasive lobular carcinoma, the second most common breast cancer type, is increasing about 3% each year, more than triple the rate of other breast cancers, the report, published on Tuesday morning, found.
About 80% of breast cancers are the invasive ductal type, which occurs when cancer cells grow in the milk ducts and invade the surrounding breast tissue.
However, incidence of invasive lobular carcinoma, a cancer than develops in the milk-producing glands of the breast — once rare — has doubled since the 1970s.
Lobular breast cancer hasn’t drawn much attention partly because many people view the five-year survival rate, which is over 90%, as a “cure rate,” but survival often drops after that point, Rebecca Siegel, an author of the report and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the ACS, told ABC News.
“And so, if you look at five-year survival, actually women with lobular breast cancer do better than ductal breast cancer,” she said. “I think that’s probably why it hasn’t gotten a lot of attention.”
However, Siegel added that the long-term outlook is poorer than for other breast cancer subtypes.
“For metastatic disease, women with lobular breast cancer are about half as likely to be alive at 10 years,” she said.
Lobular cancers are rising even faster for women under 50, at more than twice the rate of other breast cancers, the report found.
The cancer is most common in white women, with about 14 cases per 100,000 — 33% to 55% higher than in other racial and ethnic groups — but the fastest rise, at nearly 4.5% a year, has been seen among Asian American and Pacific Islander women.
Diagnosing and treating lobular breast cancer differs from other types in several ways, Dr. Anita Mamtani, a surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told ABC News.
Mamtani explained that instead of forming a lump, “lobular cancers tend to grow in a straight line or sheet-like patterns.”
This growth pattern can make lobular tumors harder to spot on mammograms, Mamtani said. Patients tend to notice subtle changes such as breast fullness, firmness, swelling, skin redness, nipple changes or discharge.
Compared with other types of breast cancer, lobular cancers are also less responsive to some treatments and more likely to occur in both breasts, which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes, according to the report.
However, lobular breast cancer still has a strong outlook when found early. The five-year survival rate for early-stage disease is about 99%, and overall survival across all stages is roughly 91%. Outcomes are even better for women who keep up with regular breast cancer screening.
“We will use a variety of diagnostic tools for most patients but, for lobular cancer, that arsenal will include not only mammograms but also ultrasound, contrast-enhanced mammograms, and MRIs,” Mamtani said.
With proper screening, lobular cancer can often be caught in its early stages, she added.
Overall, breast cancer deaths have dropped 44% since 1989, but the disease still affects one in eight women and remains a leading cause of cancer death, according to the ACS.
For all types of breast cancer, regular mammograms remain the best way to catch disease early. For women at average risk, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every two years from ages 40 to 74.
Women who are at higher risk with a family history of breast cancer or other risk factors should discuss timing of screening with their health care provider.
Nearly half of uninsured women skip breast cancer screening because of cost concerns, the report noted. Free or low-cost options are available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the American Breast Cancer Foundation and local programs.
Experts also recommend maintaining a healthy weight, staying active, limiting alcohol and speaking with your doctor about personal risk factors.
Jamie Parkerson, MD, MS, is a fourth-year psychiatry resident and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
Detail of vials and syringe containing a COVID-19 vaccination by Pfizer at Kaiser Permanente Venice Medical Office Building in Culver City Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its immunization schedule on Monday, dropping the universal COVID-19 vaccine recommendation and recommending that toddlers receive the chickenpox shot separately from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot.
Acting Director and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O’Neill signed off on the recommendations, which were made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) last month.
“Informed consent is back,” O’Neill said in a statement. “CDC’s 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual COVID-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today.”
Last month, the ACIP voted to abandon its previous universal recommendation for annual COVID-19 vaccine shots for anyone aged 6 months and older, instead suggesting that Americans can get the vaccine “based on individual-based decision-making,” or a personal choice.
The panel also voted to no longer recommended children around 12 months old receive the first dose of the combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMRV) vaccine.
Instead, the committee recommended that children receive two separate shots, one for the combined MMR shot and a second shot for chickenpox. The MMRV shot will be recommended as an option for a child’s second dose, typically given at around 4 to 6 years old.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — During a speech earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the implementation of new fitness standards for the military.
In addition to the newly proposed annual fitness exam, Hegseth’s speech emphasized “gender-neutral” testing with men and women required to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks.
Speaking to hundreds of high-ranking military officials in Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth said it was important that certain combat positions return “to the highest male standard,” acknowledging that it may lead to fewer women serving in combat roles.
The current training is not different for male and female servicemembers.
“If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is,” he said on Tuesday. “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”
“I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in [a] combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,” Hegseth added.
Before becoming secretary, Hegseth had spoken out against women in combat roles, but softened his stance during his confirmation hearings, saying he supports women serving in combat roles so long as they meet the same standards as men — an approach the military says has been in place for nearly a decade.
Some experts in exercise science and in the history of women’s service in the military told ABC News that while there is room for improvement in military fitness, they are concerned there’s a false narrative that female servicemembers are the only ones not meeting certain fitness standards.
“To me, Hegseth wants a military that looks a certain way … which [is] definitely male and muscular,” Jill Hasday, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School with expertise in sex discrimination in the military, told ABC News. “It seems like his expectation is that once they enforce more ‘rigorous standards,’ more women will be pushed out.”
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense said they did not “have anything to provide beyond Secretary Hegseth’s remarks.”
President Donald Trump also addressed officials at the Tuesday meeting, saying that “together, we’re reawakening the warrior spirit.”
Combat roles for women
In 2016, when the military opened certain high-intensity combat jobs to women, including the special operations forces, then-Secretary Ash Carter stated the importance of making sure female servicemembers “qualify and meet the standards.”
However, during his speech, Hegseth said the Department was issuing a directive that each military branch would ensure each requirement for “every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only.”
In a follow-up memo from Hegseth, he stated the annual service test will require a passing grade of 70% and will be “sex-neutral” and “male standard.”
Additionally, beginning in 2026, the U.S. Army’s new fitness standards will require both male and female soldiers to meet the same minimum physical performance benchmarks for the demands of the battlefield.
Shawn Arent, a professor and chair in the department of exercise science at the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health, said there’s nothing wrong with enforcing standards, but that there is a contradiction in Hegseth saying the tests will be “sex-normed” and also “male standard for combat roles.”
“I think we need to get away from referencing ‘male standards,'” Arent told ABC News. “They’re either standards or they’re a sex-specific standard. … I think there’s one really important caveat to this: those standards then need to make sense. In other words, what are they based on? And, if they’re arbitrary standards, then that feels certainly discriminatory.”
Arent said the standards need to be evidence-based and that it is possible the current standards need to be lowered or raised.
“It makes it sound like there’s this dramatic change, and that everything’s based on what a male can accomplish,” he said. “It should be what a combat soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, whatever, what they can accomplish in that particular role, male or female.”
Stewart Smith, a former Navy SEAL and current fitness trainer, including for those looking to enter the military, agreed, saying gender-neutral doesn’t equate to male standards.
“I don’t want to singularly say women can’t do these because there will be women that can, but I don’t think it’s a necessary focus,” Smith told ABC News. “Should [all servicemembers] be in shape and healthy and look good in a uniform? 100%. But … statistically speaking, these [maximum] standards are at a level that most men aren’t getting.”
He went on, “Saying something is gender-neutral doesn’t mean it’s the maximum male standard, right? Because, once again, if that’s the case, most males aren’t reaching that maximum male standard.”
What it would take to improve standards, according to experts
Smith and Arent said they are in favor of improving fitness standards across the military, but that Hegseth’s speech did not take into account all of the additional steps it would take to improve physical performance.
For example, Smith said improving fitness standards needs to come with improving food quality and sleep quality in the military.
“There’s a lot more problems than just high fitness standards,” he said. “Nutrition and sleep are required for that level of physical performance. … Those are the two biggest components to optimal performance that we’re stressing is you need to sleep well, you need to eat well, and you need time to train. All three are not a current priority in the military.”
Arent said this change in standards presents an opportunity for the military to examine how it can train people up to the new standards it will set.
He added that there’s a plethora of information on human performance and human optimization compared to even a decade ago
“As somebody who works with a lot of female athletes, there are ways to absolutely train them to be beasts,” Arent said. “Women are incredibly resilient, cognitively capable, and I think if you start thinking about combat roles, tactical decision-making, the ability to handle stress under these pressure situations — yes, physical fitness is a component to that, but what else are we assessing that goes with these roles?”
“We have a real opportunity here, if they lean into it to rather than setting these standards, like, ‘If you can’t meet it, too bad you suck. You’re out,'” he continued. “What are we going to do to modify how we’re approaching this to actually get more people to hit those standards?”
Too much focus on physical fitness and not other skills
The experts told ABC News that Hegseth’s speech did not focus on the other components that make people qualified to take on military combat roles.
“There’s more to leadership and service than the highest of [physical training] scores,” Smith said. “There’s learning tactics and leadership, and there’s more to leadership than great fitness tests.”
“Obviously, physical fitness can be important for many military roles, but it’s not the only thing that’s important. You don’t win a war through push-ups,” Hasday added. “Even when women were officially barred from combat, there were a lot of female troops that were essentially co-located with the troops, and they would go around with the combat troops.”
Hasday explained that in some countries where troops have been stationed, female civilians are not allowed to speak to men who are not members of their family. Having female service members with the male combat troops allowed the military to speak to female civilians to get information or to provide help.
“So, the idea, again, that you’re going to win a war by going outside someone’s house and doing push-ups, it just doesn’t seem realistic,” she said.
Female veterans hit back at Hegseth
Hegseth’s comments drew criticism from female veterans, particularly those who held combat roles.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New Jersey and a former Navy helicopter pilot, released a statement saying there is “no evidence that women cannot ably serve in combat positions.”
“Eliminating the current highly rigorous standards for women in combat positions has nothing to do with increasing lethality and everything to do with forcing women out of the Armed Forces,” she said.
Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot and Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, posted a video on Facebook stating there is no male standard or female standard for roles, including flying a fighter jet or being an artillery officer.
“Since combat roles have been open for qualified women, there have always been one standard for those jobs,” she said. “It’s a slap in the face and offensive to suggest otherwise.”
Arent said he can understand why this would be upsetting to former female servicemembers who held combat roles, particularly in reference to Hegseth’s comments about not wanting his son to be in a combat unit with women who weren’t meeting the same physical standards as men.
“Because of the way it [was] said, it makes it sound like it’s the females that are deficient,” he said. “But I would argue, by the same token, if they are physically capable, what if they’re more cognitively capable, more tactically capable, you would want them alongside your son, if that’s the case.”
Arent went on, “It’s not just women that aren’t meeting these standards. We have a whole lot of men that can’t meet some of these standards.”
While the rates of women diagnosed with breast cancer have increased, death rates have been declining, and five-year survival rates have risen.
Additionally, most breast cancer cases are being diagnosed in early stages before the disease has spread, making it easier to treat.
“It’s so exciting to be someone treating breast cancer because we can see that our treatments and improvements in treatments are actually making women live longer on average,” Dr. Julia McGuinness, an assistant professor of medicine within the division of hematology/oncology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, told ABC News.
Here’s a look at the progress made in the fight against breast cancer.
Declining death rates
Breast cancer death rates were relatively steady during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, but have been steadily declining since 1989, aside from a few years with upticks.
In 1975, there were 31.45 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women, according to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program under the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
By 2023, this had declined to 18.55 deaths per 100,000 women, the data shows.
McGuinness said that cancer being caught at earlier stages has led to more women receiving treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation sooner, which can reduce the chances of recurrence.
“It’s a very encouraging trend to see that even though more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer, on average, they’re living longer, and fewer women treated for early breast cancer will have their cancer recur,” she said.
Improving five-year survival rates
There have also been improvements in five-year relative survival percentages for breast cancer patients. This figure looks at the percentage of those who lived five years after they were diagnosed with or started treatment for a disease.
In 1975, the five-year relative survival percentage was 76.16%, according to data from the NCI’s SEER Program. In 2017, the latest year for which data is available, this improved to 93.2%.
“Our treatments have also improved dramatically and, even in the past decade, we’ve seen approvals for drugs that are making women with metastatic breast cancer live, on average, several years longer than they were even a decade ago,” McGuinness said.
These treatments include the introduction of anti-estrogen therapy several decades ago and more recent targeted therapies like immunotherapy, she said.
There have been “a lot of other new, exciting treatments — both in pill form and intravenous form — that have dramatically changed how we treat breast cancer at all stages, and also have prolonged the survival of women who have metastatic breast cancer,” McGuinness added.
Breast cancer cases being caught before spread
Recent data show that female breast cancer cases are being caught at early stages, before the disease has metastasized.
Between 2018 and 2022, two-thirds of female breast cancer cases were diagnosed at a localized stage, meaning the cancer was contained to the breast, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
About 25% of female breast cancer cases were found at the regional stage, meaning the cancer had spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, and 6% were found at a distant stage, meaning the cancer had spread to distant parts of the body, CDC data shows.
McGuinness said that screening for breast cancer has dramatically improved over the past four decades.
“Mammography screening programs were introduced in the 1970s and, since then, more women are engaged in screening mammograms, which improves our chances of catching breast cancer at an early stage that is more easily treatable with a lower chance of coming back,” she said.
She added that she is hopeful improvements will continue to be made so more cases are being caught at earlier stages, leading to improved survival rates and lower death rates.
“We’re constantly — even every month, even every week — moving the needle towards better outcomes,” McGuinness said. “I think the really beautiful thing about treating breast cancer is that we have so many options, and it really becomes a discussion with patients about the right options for them. I know that we’ll continue to improve outcomes with ongoing research.”
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump rambled and ad-libbed through an announcement meant to caution pregnant women about the possible links between the use of Tylenol and autism in children, his comments went beyond the available scientific evidence, and even the language of his own health department.
He made clear he was aware he was, at times, speaking for himself.
“You know, I’m just making these statements from me,” he said at one point. “I’m not making them from these doctors, because when they talk about different results, different studies, I talk a lot about common sense.”
Trump’s remarks deviated from the more measured guidance offered by his health agencies in subsequent news releases and op-eds.
“Don’t take Tylenol,” he boomed multiple times during the hour-long event on Tuesday.
“You’ll be uncomfortable. It won’t be as easy, maybe. But don’t take it if you’re pregnant. Don’t take Tylenol,” he said.
In a statement from Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, 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.”
Major medical groups immediately pushed back on Trump’s claims, pointing out Tylenol is considered the only safe painkiller during pregnancy, and pointing out the possible dangers of untreated pain and fever during pregnancy, including a higher risk of stillbirth.
Trump told pregnant women they should “fight like hell not to take” the drug, used to treat fevers in pregnant women, acknowledging that “there may be a point where you have to, and you’ll have to work that out with yourself.”
As blunt and simple as Trump made it sound, however, the evidence around Tylenol and autism is not yet fully formed, a fact stated by the Food and Drug Administration in a press release Tuesday.
“It is important to note that while an association between acetaminophen and neurological conditions has been described in many studies, a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature,” the agency said in the press release, which announced it would push for a label change for acetaminophen, Tylenol’s main ingredient.
Meanwhile, in a joint op-ed in Politico, the heads of the FDA, the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wrote that they “recognize the literature continues to evolve and evidence from family control studies have failed to find a correlation.”
“Furthermore, acetaminophen is the only over-the-counter medication approved to treat fevers during pregnancy, and high fevers in pregnant moms can pose a risk to their unborn child as well, such as neural tube defects,” they added.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) warned the administration’s claims were “irresponsible” and could scare pregnant patients away from taking the drug, even when it’s medically prudent.
“Today’s announcement by HHS is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children. It is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data,” said Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, ACOG president, in prepared remarks.
At times on Tuesday, Trump suggested that childhood vaccinations could contribute to autism, a theory long promoted by his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, but which has been discredited by researchers.
“I’m not a doctor, but I’m giving my opinion,” he said.
“Vaccines do not cause autism,” read a statement from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the wake of Trump’s remarks. “Decades of rigorous research have failed to provide credible scientific evidence linking vaccines to autism. Vaccines are among the most effective tools we have to keep people, especially infants and children, healthy and out of hospitals. Continued claims about a vaccine-autism link risk public health by causing people to delay or defer vaccination out of fear.”
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is seen during a meeting on September 19, 2025 in Chamblee, Georgia. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee on Friday indefinitely postponed its planned vote on whether to stop recommending the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, called ACIP, is expected to vote on the COVID-19 vaccine is still expected later Friday. It’s not clear exactly what the advisors will vote on, but the discussion may include the FDA’s recent narrowing of COVID-19 vaccine approvals to a smaller group of Americans — those over 65 or with underlying medical conditions.
A “yes” vote on the hepatitis B vaccine would have recommended that the first dose be delayed from birth and given at one month of life for babies born to moms who test negative in pregnancy.
Robert Malone, a panel member and vaccine critic, proposed tabling the vote out of concern that there had not been enough discussion about the safety of the hepatitis B vaccines.
Cody Meissner, a fellow panel member, argued that trying to “prove the absence of harm” is “simply not a practical objective.”
Presentations on Thursday by the CDC included data about the chances of side effects from the vaccine. For hepatitis B, the advisors are considering removing a universal recommendation for a shot in the hours after a baby is born, and instead only giving the shot if the mother tests positive for the infection during her pregnancy.
The birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all babies ensures that all have the opportunity to get protected from a highly contagious virus that can cause lifelong chronic disease. A CDC recommendation isn’t a mandate but can eliminate barriers — like cost — for families so they don’t need to factor that into their choice for a shot or not.
Pediatrician medical groups argue delaying this birth dose until one month of life would leave the opportunity for babies to be missed if they are born to a mother infected with the virus or from a close contact soon after birth. It also may be difficult to guess who is at risk and should be tested — half of people living with Hepatitis B don’t know they are infected, according to the CDC.
When the U.S. had a risk-based approach to vaccination before 1991, it was estimated that 200,000 to 300,000 new hepatitis B infections occurred annually in the U.S. from 1980 to 1991 and over 1 million people were living with chronic hepatitis B infection, according to the CDC.
However, hepatitis B is still a huge problem among adults in the U.S. It’s estimated that up to 2.4 million people in the country are living with chronic hepatitis B, with many being asymptomatic and unaware of their diagnosis, according to the CDC.
