The Future of Vaccine Guidance Hangs in the Balance: Should the AMA Step In?
In a move that has sparked intense debate, the American Medical Association (AMA) is grappling with a critical question: Should it establish its own vaccine advisory committee or focus on reinstating the disbanded Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)? This pivotal discussion took center stage during a recent AMA House of Delegates interim meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, leaving many wondering about the future of science-based vaccine guidance in the United States.
But here’s where it gets controversial... In June 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a shocking decision to remove all 17 members of the ACIP, replacing them with individuals whose views on vaccines aligned with his own skepticism. This move has raised alarms across the medical community, prompting urgent calls for action.
Dave Cundiff, MD, MPH, a delegate for the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP), proposed a draft policy urging the AMA to bring together key stakeholders to develop evidence-based vaccine recommendations. His vision? For the AMA to become a trusted, centralized source and public-facing megaphone for science-based vaccine guidance. While this idea has gained traction, it’s not without its critics. Some delegates worry about the feasibility and implications of such a bold move, suggesting it might be better to refer the resolution to the Board of Trustees for further review.
And this is the part most people miss... Jason Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians (ACP), strongly opposes the draft resolution, citing a potential conflict of interest. The ACP had already authored an emergency resolution in June, calling on Kennedy to reverse his decision to disband the original ACIP. The AMA endorsed this resolution, and the ACP, along with other groups, filed a lawsuit in July to challenge Kennedy’s actions, labeling them as arbitrary and capricious.
Goldman argues that creating an alternative ACIP under the AMA’s umbrella would be prohibitively expensive, with estimates ranging from $3.1 million to several hundred million dollars. He also highlights a critical issue: Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance coverage for the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program is directly tied to ACIP’s recommendations. Without the original ACIP, this program could be at risk. Instead, Goldman urges the AMA to focus its efforts on restoring the science-driven ACIP, requesting that the draft policy be referred to the Board of Trustees for further evaluation.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an AMA board member and former ACIP liaison, echoed Goldman’s sentiments, emphasizing that the ultimate goal should be to restore these entities to their original intent. Meanwhile, Cundiff acknowledged the shared goals of both sides, stating, We want, with all of our hearts, to get the old ACIP back. However, he also recognized the challenges ahead.
But is restoring the old ACIP even possible? Abhishek Dharan, MD, a delegate speaking for the Resident and Fellows Section, offered a sobering perspective: I don’t think we’re going back [to the old ACIP]. I think this nation has fundamentally changed. He challenged the AMA to rethink how vaccination recommendations should be made in the future—should they be subject to political whims or guided by the expertise of the medical community? Dharan believes the AMA has the mechanisms and expertise to convene specialty societies and develop the best possible recommendations.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the need for coordinated, evidence-based vaccine guidance has never been more urgent. With specialty societies, state governors, and other groups issuing their own recommendations, the landscape is fragmented and confusing. Virginia Dato, MD, a pediatric and public health physician, stressed the importance of a coordinated, transparent process to ensure the reliability of vaccine guidance for the millions who depend on it.
Here’s the burning question: Can the AMA fill this void, or is it a role too big to take on? As the reference committee prepares to present its final report, the medical community—and the public—awaits a decision that could shape the future of vaccine policy in the U.S.
What do you think? Should the AMA step into this role, or is restoring the original ACIP the better path forward? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation that needs your voice.
