Parents around the country are suddenly confronting a bizarre dynamic: Their pediatrician's vaccine advice doesn't match that of the federal government.

Why it matters: Kids' health is at stake at a time when vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise and trust in public health institutions is already low.

State of play: Doctors and health systems are ignoring the Trump administration's new and narrower childhood vaccine recommendations and sticking to the old schedule.

• Coalitions of blue states and local health officials are also rejecting the changes, which dropped six shots — including those for the flu, rotavirus and hepatitis — from the recommended list and instead urged parents to consult providers about the shots.
• At least 19 states have said they won't follow the new CDC schedule and will instead follow the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations, which continue to call for the same immunizations CDC did before Trump's current term.
• And more than 200 medical, public health and patient advocacy groups signed onto a letter urging Congress to investigate the schedule changes. Some — including the American Academy of Pediatrics — are suing to reverse them.

What they're saying: "This is the first time in memory that parents aren't able to count on federal health agencies to provide evidence-based vaccine recommendations," said Michael Osterholm, director of the the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and the Vaccine Integrity Project.

Between the lines: The Trump administration has stressed that all of the previously recommended vaccines will still be covered by insurance, and that whoever wants them will be able to get them.

• But parents now are in the unfamiliar position of deciding whether their child should receive certain vaccinations, which necessitates choosing which authority figures they'll listen to.
• HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before becoming health secretary — has suggested that parents figure it out themselves.

Keep reading

Republicans and Democrats are using the latest government funding package to push back against President Trump's proposed cuts to NIH — and limit the administration's influence over biomedical research grants.

Why it matters: The bipartisan sentiment shows that efforts to find new cures still have strong support on Capitol Hill after a turbulent year for the agency.

Driving the news: The health care portion of the spending package released early Tuesday includes $48.7 billion for NIH — an increase of $415 million, and a far cry from the roughly 40% cut in President Trump's budget request.

• There's also language aimed at limiting a Trump administration policy that funded multiple years of a grant all at once. Critics say the policy reduced the number of awards made.
• The spending bill would also keep language blocking NIH from imposing a 15% cap on research universities and institutions' overhead and administrative costs.
• Beyond NIH, it would additionally revive a program that prioritizes reviews of treatments for rare pediatric diseases that expired in part at the end of 2024 and was left out of subsequent funding packages.

Yes, but: NIH grant cancellations, program cuts and other unilateral moves by the administration are unlikely to stop.

Read more

The government's health care watchdog identified more than $19 billion in wasteful or fraudulent federal payments and possible cost savings over a span that included the first nine months of President Trump's second term, per a report provided exclusively to Axios.

Why it matters: The Trump administration often cites rampant waste, fraud and abuse as justification for deep cuts to federal health programs.

• The semiannual report from the HHS inspector general backs up that point, identifying questionable spending like a more than sixfold year-over-year increase in Medicare payments for high-tech bandages.

Where it stands: The savings identified in fiscal 2025 dwarf the $7 billion identified through investigative and audit work in 2024.

• But much of the final figure for the year depends on when settlements and judgments are signed.

Zoom in: OIG this year identified a 640% increase in Medicare payment for high-tech skin substitutes. Medicare administrators in the fall announced a new cap on what the program will pay for the bioengineered grafts — a change that's expected to save more than $9 billion.

Read more

Google and Microsoft couldn't crack consumer adoption in health records and care management.

• OpenAI and Anthropic look like they might, Erin Brodwin and Brock E.W. Turner wrote first on Pro.

Why it matters: The advent of large language models is changing the game in consumers' quest for answers about their health.

Driving the news: Both companies have made splashy moves in recent weeks as investors, entrepreneurs and policymakers cheered their bid to champion AI-driven care.

• Anthropic introduced Claude for Healthcare, allowing providers, payers, and consumers to use Claude for medical purposes through HIPAA-ready products.
• OpenAI acquired Torch, a startup that unifies lab results, medications and visit recordings in a deal reportedly valued at $100 million.
• Both companies also announced features that will allow users to upload their medical records from wellness apps like Apple Health and Function.

What's next: For AI giants, the next battle lines will be around primary care and basic diagnostics — and monetizing the troves of data they're collecting.

If you need smart, quick intel on health tech dealmaking for your job, get Axios Pro.

🗳️ GOP Rep. Julia Letlow launched a primary challenge against Senate health chair Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, taking advantage of Trump's endorsement. (CNN)

⚕️Florida is proposing to dramatically reduce eligibility for its AIDS drug assistance program, which critics say will force thousands of people to seek help to obtain HIV medicines. (Stat)

👩‍⚕️ Leaders of the world's most influential psychiatric manual are split over whether to add postpartum psychosis as a distinct disorder. (NYT)

🤖 Clinicians are using artificial intelligence on the job, even if the tools aren't endorsed by their employers, creating an oversight challenge. (Modern Healthcare)