The Department of Education (ED) continues to face mounting pressure over the RISE Committee’s proposed definition of “professional degree programs,” which omits the Master of Public Health (MPH), Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), and many other advanced health professions. Lawmakers, institutions, and public health advocates warn that the proposal could sharply limit students’ access to federal graduate loan support at a time of severe national workforce shortages.

What happened:

• Members of Congress have spoken out about the impact of the Department’s proposal on the health workforce.
• Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-NY) led a letter, along with several Democrats, to ED Secretary Linda McMahon last week urging the Department to reverse course on its proposal, warning that the new loan distinctions would “undermine the ability of nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, public health workers, mental health counselors, and other essential healthcare professionals to finance their education.” The letter stresses that excluding these degrees from professional loan limits will deepen workforce shortages and restrict entry into high-need fields.
• Separately, in November, Representative Mike Lawler (R-NY) pressed ED to maintain a broader definition consistent with statute and workforce needs. Following his letter, ED issued “myths vs. facts” guidance clarifying that the regulatory list of professional degrees is not exhaustive, a move Lawler called “only a first step” toward protecting students in high-need fields.

Why it matters:

• A narrow definition of Professional Degree would block MPH, DrPH, and other health professions programs from the higher graduate loan limits designated for professional degrees, potentially limiting access for students entering essential public health and health care fields.
• To learn more about ASPPH’s response to the Department’s latest proposal, please see our new webpage on this topic. We also encourage you to contact Congress today and urge them to act to include public health degrees in the definition of professional degrees.

Federal vaccine policy is experiencing significant turbulence following a leaked memo from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), major personnel changes at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and growing concerns about the scientific integrity of federal advisory processes. Decisions made at last week’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting regarding the hepatitis B vaccine regiment have further alarmed the public health community, raising questions about the evidence base guiding national recommendations. The meeting was marked by shifting voting language and process concerns, with several experts noting a lack of rigorous evidence review and increasing deviation from long-standing scientific standards.

 ACIP updates:

• ACIP voted 8–3 on Friday to end the universal birth dose recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine, advising a delayed first dose for infants whose mothers test negative. Public health and medical experts strongly opposed the change, warning it removes a critical safeguard for infants who may fall through screening gaps.
• The committee also voted to recommend that parents consult clinicians about testing whether the first dose generated adequate immunity, despite limited supporting evidence and concerns about confusing guidance.
• Following the vote, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leadership to review childhood vaccine schedules from peer countries and determine whether US core recommendations should be updated to align with those international practices. The memorandum highlights differences in national schedules and initiates a federal review process that could lead to further changes in routine childhood vaccine guidance.

Leaked memo & staffing changes:

• Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), alleged that pediatric deaths were “related” to COVID-19 vaccines and suggested revisiting annual flu shot guidance, co-administration practices, and data requirements for vaccine manufacturers.
• HHS recently appointed Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a prominent vaccine critic and former Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) chair, to a senior science role. Pediatric cardiologist Dr. Kirk Milhoan, also a vaccine critic, will replace him as ACIP chair.
• Separately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has contracted with researcher Dr. Cynthia Nevison, whose autism-related work has been referenced by anti-vaccine groups, to support the ACIP hepatitis B working group ahead of the scheduled review of newborn hepatitis B recommendations last week.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has appointed Louisiana Surgeon General Dr. Ralph Abraham as principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With the CDC director’s role currently filled on an acting basis by Jim O’Neil, Abraham becomes the agency’s highest-ranking medical official. His record on vaccines and COVID-19 response has raised concerns among public health experts about the direction of CDC guidance and public communication.

 What happened:

• Dr. Abraham, a former member of Congress, has been criticized by public health experts for promoting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and supporting unproven treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. As Louisiana’s surgeon general, he limited state vaccination promotion and questioned federal vaccine recommendations.
• He praised the decision earlier this year to remove all members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and has argued that vaccines carry risks unsupported by existing evidence.

Why it matters: 

• Leadership shifts at the CDC influence national vaccine policy, scientific communication, and trust in federal guidance, all of which shape the public’s health.
• Decreased confidence in vaccines and reduced promotion of evidence-based immunization strategies may contribute to rising vaccine skepticism and vaccine-preventable disease risks in communities.

The Department of Education (ED) appointed five new members to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), which recommends accreditors that the federal government should recognize. These appointments come amid the administration’s broader effort to overhaul the accreditation system by increasing the number of recognized accreditors, easing entry requirements for new oversight organizations, and encouraging states to play a greater role in accreditation decisions. The administration argues this will increase competition, while many higher education experts warn it could weaken quality assurance and destabilize federal aid eligibility.

 What happened:

• The five new members join the 18-member NACIQI committee, with one more appointment expected. NACIQI’s recommendations help determine institutional eligibility for federal student aid.
• Several appointees have publicly supported the administration’s accreditation changes and efforts to introduce more competition among accreditors.
• A fall NACIQI meeting was postponed, with some members suggesting the schedule be shifted to accommodate new appointees.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Accreditation decisions shape whether schools and programs maintain access to federal student aid critical to public health students.
• A more varied accreditor landscape could alter standards and review processes that affect public health programs.
• Adjustments in committee membership and cadence may signal broader changes in oversight that institutions will need to monitor closely.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is proposing a new health care plan centered on expanding tax deductions for medical expenses. The proposal comes as Congress prepares for a vote next week on expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and as Republicans debate their broader health care strategy. The plan aims to increase affordability for families but would mark a shift from existing federal policies that tie assistance to income and insurance coverage.

 What happened:

• Senator Hawley’s bill would allow all taxpayers to deduct up to $25,000 per person in medical expenses, including out-of-pocket premium costs. Under current law, only taxpayers who itemize their deductions may deduct unreimbursed medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.
• He has discussed the proposal with President Donald Trump, who he says reacted positively. The bill has not yet been reviewed by Senate Republican leadership or the Senate Finance Committee.

Why it matters:

• Changes to medical tax deductions could significantly affect household health care spending, insurance affordability, and coverage decisions.
• The proposal could emerge as a fallback option if Congress cannot reach an agreement on addressing the expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies, potentially influencing the stability of the individual market.

While we encourage your sharing of our Policy & Advocacy newsletter by forwarding it, those interested in receiving it can also sign up via this form.