On January 5, 2026, the CDC issued a new vaccine schedule for babies and children. (This may have been a response to a presidential request issued on December 5, 2025. President Trump apparently asked the CDC and Health and Human Services to evaluate other countries’ vaccine schedules). Instead of 17 infections, new guidelines recommend only 11. You can read all about that below. In the meantime, with measles spreading rapidly from its epicenter in South Carolina, what actions do adults need to take?
Will a Childhood Immunization Protect for Decades?
Q. I had a measles vaccine when I was a child. Now that I am reading about a measles outbreak in my state, do I need a booster shot? How would I know if my immunity has worn off?
A. The measles vaccination children got in the mid-1960s was less effective and less durable than the current shot. To find out if your childhood measles vaccination is still protecting you, the best approach is a blood test for an MMR titer. This detects your body’s immune reaction to the measles virus.
Your doctor could order this, or you can order it yourself. You will find several options online; all require you to go to a commercial lab to have your blood drawn. The cost ranges from about $40 to around $200. Some insurance policies may cover it.
If your measles titer is high, you don’t need to do anything else. If it is low, though, you should request a booster shot.
What Diseases Does the New Vaccine Schedule for Children Cover?
The agency recommends that all children be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), polio, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV) and varicella (chickenpox).
Under the new schedule, CDC recommends vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), dengue, meningococcal ACWY and meningococcal B (both meningitis) and hepatitis A and B vaccinations only for children at high risk. Certain vaccines have been placed in a category called “shared decision-making.” Parents are encourages to discuss these vaccines with the child’s pediatrician or primary healthcare provider. In theory, parents and providers work together to protect children against the diseases for which they are most at risk. These vaccines include rotavirus (causes severe diarrhea), COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease and hepatitis. As you can see, there is some overlap between the vaccine schedule for “high-risk” individuals and that for shared decision-making.
What Stakeholders Are Saying:
Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said that these recommendations will strengthen transparency and informed consent and rebuild trust in public health. Clearly, that would be a desirable goal. Politicization of the COVID-19 vaccine seriously undermined public trust.
The CDC emphasizes that this new vaccine schedule
“Ensures that all the diseases covered by the previous immunization schedule will still be available to anyone who wants them through Affordable Care Act insurance plans and federal insurance programs, including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Vaccines for Children program.”
Dr. Marty Makary, Commissioner of the FDA, remarked:
“Public health works only when people trust it. That trust depends on transparency, rigorous science, and respect for families. This decision recommits HHS to all three.”
According to Dr. Mehmet Oz, director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
“All vaccines currently recommended by the CDC will remain covered by insurance without cost sharing.”
Dr. Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, countered that
“This is a giant step backward that jeopardizes children’s health and safety.”
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a former director of the CDC’s center on immunization and respiratory diseases, told the Washington Post:
“The abrupt replacement of the immunization schedule by one designed for another context and healthcare system has been done with no scientific justification.”
Like a number of other former officials, he expressed dismay at the changes. Some scientists who have left the agency think that it did not conduct adequate analysis of epidemiological data. In addition, some object to adopting a scheduled very similar to Denmark’s despite differences between the two countries.
