Will Humble Early Childhood, Wills Blog

What the 2025 Child Fatality Review Report Tells Us (Including Policy Recommendations)

Every year since the 1990s the Arizona Child Fatality Review Program looks at every child death in our state — from birth through age 17 — to see which ones might have been prevented. Their goal is simple but vital: to use what we learn to save lives.

The 2025 report (the 32nd annual edition) shows that communities across Arizona — including all tribal nations and local review teams — completed reviews for 100% of child deaths in the year.

That thorough work helps point out trends, risks, and possible solutions so that parents, lawmakers, and communities can do better.

2025 Child Fatality Review Report

What Are the Main Problems

The report breaks child deaths into different types — accidental injuries, homicides, suicides, natural (medical) causes, and more.

Some of the biggest issues include:

Premature births and sudden infant deaths — For babies under one year, prematurity and sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) remain major challenges.

  • Drowning deaths — Children sometimes die in water-related accidents.
  • Firearm-related deaths — Gun injuries remain a serious cause of child fatalities.
  • Car crashes and motor vehicle accidents — Crashes continue to put young lives at risk.
  • Infectious disease deaths — The report notes that deaths from infectious illness rose, and a significant portion may have been preventable.

While some deaths are unavoidable, many fall into categories labeled “preventable” — meaning that safety rules, education, health care access, or better supervision could be effective.

What the Report Recommends

Based on its findings, the CFRP proposes several key steps for families, communities, and lawmakers to help reduce child deaths.

  • Require proper storage of all firearms by making adult owners legally civilly & criminally responsible for keeping the firearm unloaded and locked in a safe with the ammunition stored separately.
  • Families should store firearms securely, keeping guns unloaded and locked, with ammunition stored separately. Arizona should implement a child access prevention law to reinforce the importance of safe gun storage.
  • Parents and caregivers should use age-appropriate car seats and seat belts — and enforce rear-seat travel for children under 13. Enforcement of existing requirements would help
  • Communities should expand home-visiting and support programs (especially for expectant mothers), and encourage healthy behaviors during pregnancy to reduce premature birth deaths
  • Parents must know safe-sleep guidelines for babies and avoid using items not designed for infant sleep or recalled products.
  • Access to health care and preventive measures — including vaccinations and timely medical care — should be improved, especially to address disease-related deaths.

Some recommendations need new laws; others can be acted on by state agencies, community groups, or families right away.

Firearm Violence in Arizona: Data to Support Prevention Policies

You can see the numerous graphs and policy recommendations in the full report (142 pages): 2025 Child Fatality Review Report

Will Humble Early Childhood, Vaccination, Wills Blog

Kennedy’s ACIP Votes to Weaken the Birth-Dose Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation

Last week the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to change a policy that has protected newborns for 30 years. ACIP is the group that advises the CDC on vaccines, and its decisions shape what shots are covered by the Vaccines for Children program, Medicaid, and private insurance… so they have a hardwire into vaccine policy and reimbursement.

Arizona reacts to RFK Jr. panel’s decision on Hep B vaccine

The new recommendation says that parents of babies born to mothers who test negative for hepatitis B should talk with their doctor about whether to delay the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. If they choose to delay, ACIP says the baby should wait until at least 2 months of age to start the vaccine series.

This is a big shift in policy (which wasn’t supported by evidence). The birth dose has helped cut hepatitis B infections in babies by more than 90% over the last few decades.

At least the committee recommended that if a mom hasn’t been tested for Hep B (or if she tests positive for hepatitis B) the old rules stay in place… that the babies should still get the vaccine within 12 hours of birth, plus hepatitis B immune globulin.

Because of the way ACIP wrote the new recommendation, coverage rules don’t change. VFC and private plans must still cover the birth dose.

But here’s the concerning part: ACIP didn’t present new safety or effectiveness issues to support this change. Instead, committee members said they revisited the policy because:

  • Some parents have concerns about the birth dose
  • Some European countries wait a few months to start the vaccine
  • It has been a long time since ACIP last reviewed this topic

Those reasons may sound reasonable at first glance, but they ignore real-world risks in the U.S. health system. All pregnant women should be tested for hepatitis B, but testing does not always happen.

Even when it does, about 2% of results are false negatives. And some women become infected later in pregnancy, after they’ve already been tested. The birth dose is the safety net that protects babies in these situations.

A new modeling study (not yet peer-reviewed) estimates that delaying the vaccine until 2 months could lead to:

  • 1,400 more babies becoming chronically infected in the first year
  • 304 future liver cancer cases
  • 482 deaths related to hepatitis B

Hepatitis B in infants is extremely serious. About 90% of babies infected at birth become chronically infected, and about one-quarter of those children will die early from liver disease.

An Odd Second Recommendation

ACIP also advised that parents who choose to vaccinate their kid for Hep B ask for a blood test after the first dose to see if more doses are needed. This suggestion wasn’t backed by evidence either. It’s also impractical and won’t be covered by VFC or insurance because it’s not a vaccine—it’s a lab test.

The Bigger Picture

Last week’s changes won’t cause sweeping harm right away because they apply only to infants whose moms known to be negative for hepatitis B. But the signal is clear.

I think this these decisions are just the lowest hanging fruit and the start of what will be a years-long effort by CDC leadership and Kennedy to make wholesale changes to the kids and adult vaccine schedules. Basically, that last week’s “small” changes are warm-up for much larger steps in 2026, 2027 and 2028.

In a nutshell:

  • The decisions at ACIP are now mainly driven by politics & ideology rather than hard evidence, undermining trust in public-health guidance.
  • This politicization decreases vaccination uptake, risking preventable disease outbreaks and long-term public health harm.
  • That greatly weakened institutional expertise at the CDC and their consent to the ACIP recommendations harms both domestic and global health infrastructure — which historically relied on robust, evidence-based vaccine programs out of the ACIP & CDC.

Since last week’s changes weren’t driven by evidence – the future changes probably won’t be either.

Will Humble Professional Development, Wills Blog

Public Health Journalism this Week

Arizona lawmaker proposes making ivermectin available over-the-counter

Arizona flu rising E. coli linked to state fair sparks concerns – Arizona PBS

Copa Health to operate new housing for Arizonans with mental illness

RFK Jr.’s ACIP panel recommends delay in newborn hepatitis B vaccination | STAT

RFK Jr.’s CDC spreads false facts about vaccines, autism, critics say

Arizona reacts to RFK Jr. panel’s decision on Hep B vaccine

Will Humble Oral Health, Wills Blog

New NIH-Backed Study: Fluoridated Water During Childhood Linked to Better Academic Performance — Contrary to What Kennedy Claims

A landmark NIH-funded study published this week offers evidence supporting the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation, The study directly refutes the false claims Secretary Kennedy has made about community water fluoridation.

Drawing on data from nearly 27,000 individuals across more than 1,000 U.S. high schools the research finds that children raised with recommended levels of fluoride in their drinking water tend to perform better on standardized tests in math, reading, and vocabulary, compared to peers in non-fluoridated communities.

The study reported no negative cognitive effects among older adults (around age 60) exposed to the same fluoride levels during their youth (despite what Kennedy says).

Childhood fluoride exposure and cognition across the life course | Science Advances

Key Findings

  • Improved High School Test Scores
    • The study used the “High School and Beyond” cohort, a nationally representative sample of students followed from 1980 into the 2020s.
    • Adolescents who drank optimal fluoride (around 0.7 mg/L, the U.S. public health recommendation) scored modestly but consistently higher in mathematics, reading comprehension, and vocabulary.
    • The cognitive advantage was small (about 7% of a standard deviation), but statistically clear.
  • No Evidence of Harm Later in Life
    • When researchers followed up with participants around age 60, they found no statistically significant link between childhood fluoride in drinking water and cognitive function (memory, fluency, attention) in older adulthood.
  • Robustness & Quality
    • The study controlled for a wide range of confounders (e.g., socioeconomic status, residential moves) and ran sensitivity analyses to rule out alternative explanations.
    • By focusing on fluoride exposures typical of U.S. water systems, it avoids the critiques of earlier studies that examined much higher levels found overseas.

Childhood fluoride exposure and cognition across the life course | Science Advances

  • Fluoridation is a Local Decision in Arizona: In Arizona, municipal or county governments decide whether to fluoridate their water systems. This new study provides strong, locally relevant evidence to support continued or renewed fluoridation.
  • Leveraging the Study for Advocacy: AZPHA members can bookmark and reference this study in discussions with city councils, county boards, or public health committees. It’s not just theory — it’s real-world, long-term data from U.S. communities.
  • Countering Misinformation: For years, opponents of fluoridation have claimed U.S.-level fluoride harms IQ or health. This rigorous, NIH-funded research directly refutes those claims at the very levels used in public systems.
  • Dental Health + Broader Health Equity: We know that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by at least 25% in children and adults. With this new cognitive data in hand, AZPHA can make an even stronger public health case — not just for preventing cavities, but for supporting brain development and long-term wellness.

Call to Action 

  • Share the Evidence: Use blog posts, newsletters, and presentations to spread awareness among elected officials, water utility managers, and community stakeholders.
  • Engage the Community: Host forums, webinars, or coffee talks in your jurisdiction to explain the significance of the study in plain language.
  • Policy Letters with Impact: When writing to local decision-makers, include a link to the full study (Science Advances, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adz0757) as well as key take-home messages (academic performance, safety, long-term benefits).
  • Align with Other Public Health Messaging: Integrate these findings into broader oral health and local prevention strategies — fluoridation isn’t just about teeth, it’s about lifelong health.

Childhood fluoride exposure and cognition across the life course | Science Advances

Will Humble Public Health, Social Determinants, Wills Blog

New HUD Housing Rules: What They Could Mean for Homelessness & Folks w/ a Serious Mental Illness

The federal housing agency (HUD) just changed the way they intend to issue grants to prevent homelessness. The changes are big, and they’ll affect how Arizona communities are able to prevent homelessness and house people with serious mental illness.

In the past, most HUD housing money was renewed automatically each year using local plans. Under the new rules, only about 30% of the funding will be renewed with the remaining 70% up for competitive awards based on new criteria that HUD is prioritizing (e.g. funds will be preferentially directed to states with criminal penalties for urban camping).

Communities with strict camping bans, written partnerships with police, and programs that require people to take part in treatment will now have a competitive advantage for grant awards over those communities that don’t have those things.

HUD is also setting a limit on how much money can go toward long-lasting housing (permanent supported housing) …  the type of housing that’s important for people with serious mental illness who often need stable housing and supportive services for many years.

The new rules push communities to prioritize their plans to focus on short-term housing with tight rules and required treatment programs.

AHCCCS Housing Programs

Arnold v Sarn Legislative Report 2025

Arizona counties play a role in housing folks with a serious mental illness and they’re now under the gun to come up with plans that match what HUD is looking for or go without the federal funds.

For example, Maricopa County relies heavily on long-term housing. The county’s Continuum of Care includes more than 170 housing programs and more than 15,000 beds. They’ll need to rethink that focus or risk losing up to 70% of their current funding. Many other counties are in the same position.

If HUD funding drops or shifts away from long-term housing (as envisioned by the new HUD rules), Maricopa County could lose up to 1,388 units and about $32M. This would make it much harder for people with serious mental illness to find stable places to live.

Losing long-term housing puts people at great risk. Without a stable home, it’s harder to take medications on time, see doctors, or stay connected to support services. This leads to more mental health crises, more emergency room visits, and more time spent in jail.

Arizona counties and communities now face a stark choice. They can try to match HUD’s new expectations by focusing more on short-term programs, strict rules, and law-enforcement partnerships or roll the dice and risk losing most of their housing funds.

Note: AzPHA Policymaker of the Year awardee Attorney General Kris Mayes (with other Attorneys General) filed a multistate lawsuit accusing the HUD of illegally changing its Continuum of Care housing grant program. The suit argues that HUD is cutting protections for long-term housing by slashing the portion of automatically renewed funding and imposing new conditions like mandatory treatment participation and local anti-camping enforcement—without congressional approval.

The plaintiffs contend these changes will reduce access to permanent housing, destabilize populations with serious mental illness and chronic homelessness, and violate the “Housing First” model. They characterize the policy shift as arbitrary and capricious.

Will Humble Professional Development, Public Health, Wills Blog

Public Health Journalism this Week

Hobbs taps new Arizona Department of Health Services director — the third in 3 years

E. coli outbreak at Arizona State Fair may have started with pig

Kyrsten Sinema is promoting use of ibogaine and RFK Jr.’s MAHA agenda

Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham named CDC deputy director

Drowning top cause of death for Arizona children in 2024

Arizona appeals court revives suit against Corporation Commission’s new yearly rate adjustments

Adult-use marijuana impact on the Arizona economy five years later – Arizona PBS

Prepare for increasing number of mosquitoes in Arizona – Arizona PBS

Will Humble Public Health, Wills Blog

Debbie Johnston Nominated to ADHS Director Post A New Chapter for Arizona’s Health Department?

Over the past four years, Arizona’s Department of Health Services (ADHS) has not had a permanent, Senate-confirmed director. Since 2021, the agency was led by a series of interim leaders, making it hard to keep long-term (and even short term) priorities steady.

That may be about to change. Last week Governor Hobbs named Debbie Johnston as the next director of ADHS, effective Monday. Johnston retired in June 2025 after more than 20 years at the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, where she worked on health policy and regulatory affairs.

I’ve known Debbie for about 20 years, and she’s always struck me as thoughtful and thorough. She listens carefully, studies issues in depth, and can make decisive calls. Her experience is especially strong where ADHS has struggled in the past: licensing and regulating health facilities like nursing homes, assisted-living centers, behavioral health clinics, and other treatment providers.

Under the previous administration, this part of ADHS didn’t perform well — so her background here feels like a real asset.

Even as ADHS made some progress on regulating those facilities, there’s more work to be done. I’m optimistic that Debbie’s leadership can help the agency finish the job.

On the public health side, the agency already has steady leadership: Celia Nabor oversees prevention, Nicole Witt handles preparedness, and Sheila Sjolander, who has been serving as interim director, will return to her role as deputy for public health when Debbie begins.

One thing I hope Debbie will change is how ADHS talks to the public and to journalists. For the last several years, the agency hasn’t been open or clear about public health issues. It would be great to see more transparency — telling the story of public health in Arizona in a way people can understand and trust. I really hope she’s someone who could direct that shift.

Debbie’s nomination will go to the state Senate for confirmation, and I hope  she has a good shot. Her steady, honest approach gives me confidence. But, of course, confirmation is never guaranteed, especially when Hoffman is involved.

Overall, this feels like a promising moment for ADHS. With a confirmed director for the first time in years, the agency may finally get the stability it needs to improve how it regulates facilities and how it communicates with the people of Arizona.

Will Humble Professional Development, Wills Blog

AZPHA at the APHA National Meeting: Making Public Health a Priority

AZPHA has been a proud state affiliate of the American Public Health Association (APHA) since 1928 — nearly 100 years! Being an affiliate comes with great benefits, like national connections and opportunities to share Arizona’s public health work, but it also comes with responsibilities.

One of those responsibilities is choosing an APHA Governing Council and voting for us at the APHA Governing Council.

For the last few years, Rebecca Nevedale has filled that role for us, and this year she also served as the regional lead for the western-state ARGCs. AZPHA usually has members who attend and take part in the APHA Annual Meeting, and this year our representatives from the AZPHA Board of Directors were Rebecca Nevedale and Ryann Whealy.

Every year, APHA hosts its big national conference, bringing together thousands of people from all over the country — and the world — who care about public health. This year’s meeting took place in Washington, D.C., November 2–5, with the theme: “Making the Public’s Health a National Priority.”

There were hundreds of presentations, thousands of attendees, and tons of chances to learn new things, meet new people, and share ideas.

People came to talk about how to keep communities healthy, how to prepare for future health problems, and how to make sure everyone — no matter who they are or where they live — has a fair shot at good health.

Some Highlights

  • Lots of presentations: There were talks, posters, roundtables, lightning sessions — basically nonstop learning all day, every day.
  • Big keynote talks: These “general sessions” brought leaders together to talk about major issues facing public health right now.
  • Special programs: Things like short courses, a film festival, women’s leadership sessions, and “coffee talks” gave people extra ways to learn and connect.
  • The Public Health Expo: A huge exhibit hall where organizations showed off new tools, research, and programs.

Major Themes This Year

  • Health is a human right. The meeting focused on making health a top national priority — not just for some people, but for everyone.
  • Prevention matters. A big message was that stopping problems before they start helps save lives, money, and time.
  • Preparing for the future. Public health leaders talked about how to be ready for the next big challenge, whether it’s a new disease, climate impacts, or community needs.
  • Fairness and equity. A key goal was making sure all communities get what they need to be healthy, especially those that have been left out in the past.

AZPHA’s presence at the national meeting helps make sure Arizona’s voice is heard in national conversations about public health. It also lets our board members and members:

  • Learn about new strategies
  • See what other states are doing
  • Build partnerships
  • Bring back ideas that help improve public health work here at home

Rebecca and Ryann represented Arizona well, joining national discussions, sharing Arizona-based perspectives, and staying connected with other state affiliates.

Relevant APHA 2025 Sessions for Arizona

  • Transforming Public Health through Indigenous-Led Approaches — This session centers Indigenous knowledge, ceremony, and community-led public health strategies. APHA Conference
  • Assessing Health Needs and Barriers in a Tribal Community — A data-driven presentation focused on culturally responsive planning to reduce health disparities in American Indian / Alaska Native communities. APHA Conference
  • Documenting Self-Reported Tribal Affiliation Data in Health Systems — Lessons from expanding electronic health records to better reflect American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) identities. APHA Conference
  • Understanding Health Priorities and Support Strategies in Tribal Health Systems — A panel/session that discusses how tribal health systems find and address their most pressing health needs. APHA Conference
  • Advancing Public Health for AIANNH & API Populations — Focused on public health policy, health equity, and culturally responsive interventions for American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Asian/Pacific Islander groups. APHA Conference
  • Whose Water: The People’s Movement for Safe, Affordable, Community-Controlled Water — Examines water justice, public control, and affordability — very relevant in places facing water scarcity or infrastructure challenges. APHA Conference
  • Center for Climate, Health & Equity Program — This “track” / program includes multiple sessions on environmental health, climate resilience, and equity — important for Arizona especially given heat and climate impacts. APHA Conference
  • Protecting Health from Extreme Heat – State Leadership in Action — A related APHA event/webinar (not sure if part of the main meeting track) that highlights state strategies for addressing heat as a health threat. American Public Health Association

You can dive deeper into the various sessions on the APHA conference website at: APHA 2025 Annual Meeting and Expo

Will Humble Disease Control, Vaccination, Wills Blog

Kennedy Directs CDC to Change their Vaccine Messaging Using False Information: Could it be Foreshadowing Harmful Policy Changes Too?

Kennedy has a long history of opposing childhood vaccinations and even worked as a lawyer to try to stop kids from getting vaccinated. Now, with the power of the state, he’s directing the CDC to put out false messages about childhood vaccines.

This week he directed the CDC to change their website to question decades of scientific research than have consistently shown no link between autism and child vaccines – saying that the long-time statement that “vaccines do not cause autism” is not evidence-based. This, despite overwhelming evidence showing no link between vaccines and autism.

Autism and Vaccines | Vaccine Safety | CDC

This change is bad and feeds the anti-vax fire with more false information. But that’s not my primary concern. I’m more worried that he will use his authority to make policy changes that will undermine childhood vaccination.

There are 2 ways he could do it.

The first is to get the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (now stacked with anti-vaccine people) to remove some vaccines from the recommended vaccine schedule. That would cause the Vaccines for Children program (which provides free vaccines for more than half of American children) to no longer cover those vaccines – making them cash pay for low-income families. Private insurers would then be able to stop covering them, again making them cash pay.

RFK Jr.’s CDC spreads false facts about vaccines, autism, critics say

Kennedy could also go deeper into using false information to claim that there’s a link between vaccines and autism – making autism compensable under the vaccine injury compensation fund, bankrupting the fund.

An insolvent fund would then provide a powerful incentive for vaccine manufacturers to stop making all childhood vaccines (most of which have a very low profit margin). This would make it much harder to maintain production of childhood vaccines and could harm public health on a large scale.

We all need to cross our fingers that Kennedy doesn’t end up ordering a wholesale removal vaccines from the schedule and/or intentionally bankrupting the VICF to get rid of vaccines altogether.

AZPHA continues to urge parents to follow guidance from trusted health professionals like pediatricians, not Mr. Kennedy.

Note: The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices is meeting on December 4 and 5 – and a large portion of the 2-day meeting is focused on the child vaccine schedule.

Day 2 has ‘votes’ about the child vaccine schedule without disclosing what those votes will be about. My continuing fear is that Kennedy will use his authority to cut shots from the schedule in order to end vaccination through the back door.

Will Humble Disease Control, Vaccination, Wills Blog

This Year’s Flu Shot & What the New H3N2 Strain Could Mean

Every spring scientists pick which flu viruses to include in the Northern Hemisphere’s fall influenza vaccine. Today we’ll cover the latest influenza surveillance and the content of the 2025-2026 influenza vaccines in the US.

How is the content of the fall influenza vaccine decided? It’s a process that focuses on using the best evidence – but it has challenges because of the wildcards the Southern hemisphere can play during their winter (our summer).

Each spring CDC experts look at flu viruses from all around the world and decide which strains are most likely to circulate during our (Northern hemisphere) influenza season. They check:

  • which flu strains are spreading most,
  • how the viruses’ surface proteins (especially something called hemagglutinin, or HA) have changed,
  • whether existing immunity (from prior infection or vaccination) might not work as well.

Once the strain is selected (usually in March) vaccine makers start growing those picked strains (often in eggs). Because growing and distributing takes time, the vaccine formula has to be selected in the spring.

What Happened in the Southern Hemisphere

The wildcard is in the Southern hemisphere. Flu viruses keep evolving in places like Argentina, Brazil and Australia during our summer – even as US vaccine manufacturers are already making the fall season vaccine. That means a new strain can pop up down under during our summer – but it’s found too late to change what’s in our fall vaccine.

Because the vaccine choice has to be made before all possible changes occur, this means there’s always a bit of “leap of faith” involved.

What’s in the 2025‑26 Vaccine for the Northern Hemisphere

Here are the viruses the CDC recommended for this season (back in March):

  • An A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09‑like virus
  • An A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)‑like virus
  • A B/Austria/1359417/2021‑like (B/Victoria lineage) virus

These were picked because they represented what scientists believed would be the most likely flu types to spread.

The New H3N2 Strain: What’s Going On?

As sometimes is the case – the virus evolved in the Southern Hemisphere over our summer (their winter). The new strain isn’t a huge change from what was predicted – but it is a bit different. The new strain is an H3N2 “subclade K” virus – and it’s recently popped up in Canada, the UK, Japan and Europe.

  • Subclade K has several new mutations compared to the H3N2 strain that was chosen for the vaccine.
  • Early data suggest this variant is already dominant in some regions (for example, the UK found high proportions of H3N2 being subclade K).
  • Because it appeared after the vaccine strain was picked—at the tail end of the Southern Hemisphere season—it may mean this year’s vaccine isn’t perfectly matched with what’s likely to circulate in AZ this winter.

What It Means for Vaccine Effectiveness

So, what do these changes mean for how well the vaccine will work? Here’s the assessment:

  • Because subclade K has drifted (i.e., mutated) away from the strain used in the vaccine, there’s a reduced match. That means the vaccine might be less effective in preventing mild or moderate illness compared to a perfectly matched season.
  • But… the influenza vaccines in pharmacies and doctors’ offices still offer important protection, especially against severe illness and hospitalization.
  • For example, early data from the UK show around 70‑75% effectiveness in children and 30‑40% in adults, even with this new K strain dominating circulation.

Bottom Line

  • The vaccine for 2025‑26 was chosen carefully, based on the best information that was available in March.
  • A new H3N2 variant (subclade K) showed up after the CDC’s recommendation for this year’s vaccine. It has more mutations than expected, so it might reduce vaccine effectiveness somewhat, but we don’t know that for sure yet.
  • If this year’s vaccine ends up being less effective than usual it doesn’t appear to be the fault of CDC or Kennedy this time – it’s because the new strain evolved after the vaccine decision was made (and had to be made).
  • Even if there’s some ‘immune escape’ because of the new subclade K virus, early data from the UK suggest it’s likely that the vaccine will still provide strong protection especially for children and seniors and for reducing hospitalizations.

See all the recommendations: Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, 2025–26 Influenza Season | MMWR

1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 200