Dartmouth Breaks with HHS

Dartmouth Health broke with updated federal vaccine guidance, criticizing a decision by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to scale back childhood immunization recommendations. In a January 7 statement, Dartmouth Health leadership said it remained committed to the prior vaccine schedule supported by major pediatric organizations, placing the institution at odds with new federal guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the set of new CDC guidelines, only 11 of the 17 vaccines that were previously recommended for childhood immunization remain. Vaccines removed from the list include those protecting against respiratory syncytial virus, rotavirus, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, and seasonal influenza. These diseases are mostly treatable but still pose risks to young children. Dartmouth Health claimed that there is no reason to deviate from the 2024 schedule, which continues to be endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

“We are disappointed,” said Dr. Keith J. Loud in the statement, saying that the earlier schedule was based on decades of research consensus among immunologists, infectious disease specialists, and other public health professionals. Dartmouth Health announced it will continue to recommend the older schedule, aligning itself with the New Hampshire and Vermont Departments of Health rather than the revised federal standard.

The prominent announcement places Dartmouth Health under the national spotlight in an important debate over federal agencies’ role in shaping health policies. Dartmouth’s influence extends well beyond the Upper Valley, as Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center consistently ranks as the state’s top hospital. Dartmouth Health also trains hundreds of medical residents and fellows each year through its partnership with the Geisel School of Medicine.

Dartmouth Health’s statement reads as a routine defense of scientific norms. While skepticism toward federal bureaucracies is hardly new, public opinions in health guidance are notably divided under the controversial Secretary of Health and Human Services, causing confusion when expert bodies diverge so starkly. If federal agencies plan to revise widely accepted medical guidance, they owe the public broad transparency and justification that for now appears insufficient to convince key professional partners.