“Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”

Vice President JD Vance in a Sept. 28, 2025, Fox News interview

As the U.S. headed for a government shutdown, Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of forcing the closure because they want to give health care access to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

“Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens,” Vice President JD Vance  on “Fox News Sunday.”

President  House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Republican members of Congress have repeated this line.

It’s wrong.

Democrats have refused to vote for Republicans’ resolution to extend the federal spending deadline, and their position does, in part, hinge on health care spending. Democrats want to extend covid pandemic-era Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year and roll back Medicaid cuts in the tax and spending bill that Trump signed into law this summer. 

The  wouldn’t give health care to immigrants who lack legal status; that population is already largely ineligible for federally funded health care. Instead, the proposal would restore access to certain health care programs for legally present immigrants who will lose access under the Republican law.

The White House did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment for this fact check. Vance  of his talking point in another interview by saying it was included in the Democrats’ spending proposal. It’s not.

A  followed up with screenshots of the Democratic proposal repealing a section of the Republican law labeled “alien Medicaid eligibility.” It’s important to know that these changes would not give Medicaid access to immigrants who lack lawful status.

Vance defended his statement again in an Oct. 1 White House , saying former President Joe Biden “waived away illegal immigration status” that helped migrants access federal assistance. It’s important to note that many people  through humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status programs don’t automatically qualify for Medicaid; , and many people who entered the U.S. on humanitarian parole are required to wait five years before accessing it.

The Trump administration has ended humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status for many people, rendering them ineligible for Medicaid and health plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

We did not find evidence that Democrats want to spend “hundreds of billions” in costs for insuring migrants with unlawful presence.

Immigrants Lacking Legal Status Are Already Ineligible

Most federal health care dollars cannot be spent on health care for people in the U.S. who lack legal status. They cannot enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, and they are  through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. A small Medicaid program reimburses hospitals for uninsured emergency care, which can include immigrants in the country without authorization but is not exclusive to them.

States such as California and Illinois for people regardless of their immigration status, and the states pay for that. Federal law already banned states from using federal money for these programs. An  of the Republican spending law would have penalized such states by withholding funding, but that provision didn’t last.

People in the country without permission might receive some federally funded health care in emergency cases; in those situations, hospitals must provide care even if a person is uninsured or in the country illegally. Emergency Medicaid covers hospital care for immigrants who would be eligible for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. The Republican tax and spending law  hospitals can receive for emergency immigrant care.

Most Emergency Medicaid spending is used on childbirth. In all, it represented of total Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2023, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

GOP Law Limited Care Access for Immigrants With Legal Status

The Republican tax and spending law made several changes to health care eligibility for immigrants living in the country with permission. An estimated 1.4 million legal immigrants are expected to lose their health insurance, according to a  of  projections. 

Starting October 2026, the law will restrict eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to lawfully permanent residents, people from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, or Palau who lawfully reside in the U.S. under an , and certain .

Previously, a broad group, described as “,” was eligible for Medicaid and its related Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, including refugees and people granted asylum.

Some immigrants eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, such as lawful permanent residents, are  before accessing the benefits. 

The law also limited Affordable Care Act marketplace eligibility to the same group eligible for Medicaid and CHIP beginning Jan. 1, 2027. Previously, people who were described as “” were eligible. That group included the “qualified noncitizens” eligible for Medicaid and people with short-term statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status or international students.

Beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, for immigrants who entered the U.S. without authorization as children were previously eligible for Affordable Care Act coverage and its subsidies. They are ineligible since a took effect in August.

Democrats’ Proposal Would Restore Legal Immigrants’ Access

The Democrats’  would, in part,  the Affordable Care Act subsidies and roll back billions in Republican cuts to Medicaid and other health programs. 

The change would make Medicaid, CHIP, and Affordable Care Act coverage available to all legal immigrants who were previously eligible for it, such as refugees and people granted asylum.

The Democratic proposal would not broaden eligibility to federally funded health care programs to immigrants lacking legal status.

Vance said the Democratic policies would “give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens,” and the White House did not offer its source for that figure. When Johnson , he referenced the Congressional Budget Office. The KFF analysis of  found that the Republican law’s provisions related to legal immigrants would reduce federal spending by $131 billion; this projection did not include an estimate for people without legal status.

Our Ruling

Vance said, “Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”

Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are largely ineligible for the federally funded health care programs Medicare and Medicaid, and they cannot seek coverage in the Affordable Care Act marketplace or apply for subsidies.

The Democrats’ budget proposal would not change that.

The Democrats want to restore access to certain health care programs to legal immigrants who will lose access under the Republican tax and spending law — among other measures aimed at making Medicaid and Affordable Care Act insurance plans easier to keep. 

Their proposal would not grant federally supported health care benefits to people in the U.S. illegally, because they did not have access to them in the first place. The small amount of funding designated for Emergency Medicaid reimburses hospitals that provide emergency care to immigrants who would be eligible for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. Finally, we did not find evidence for Vance’s assertion that Democrats want “hundreds of billions” in health benefits for migrants in the country illegally. 

We rate the statement False.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/fact-check-immigrants-federal-health-care-shutdown-jd-vance-false/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“Everybody can get” the covid-19 vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the covid-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the its covid , limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe covid infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years — that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost — is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the .

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans vaccines recommended by the CDC. also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a .

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a covid shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel .

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, .

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a covid vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

‘Off-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a covid vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a covid vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children — and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor — shared clinical decision-making — and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

Covid vaccines cost about $142, according to the . It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a covid vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a covid vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the covid vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth — the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-access-fact-check/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Sitting in the Fiserv Forum, the convention’s Milwaukee venue, Vance took questions from host Sean Hannity and addressed criticism about his previous comments on domestic violence, abortion, and his 2016 disapproval of Trump.

A couple of times, Vance accused the media of twisting controversial comments about violent marriages and abortion exemptions. We took a closer look at four of his claims.

Vance Mischaracterizes Biden’s Stance on Abortion

Vance addressed his own and Trump’s position on abortion. He described Trump’s position “to let voters in states” decide abortion laws as “reasonable,” contrasting it with Biden’s. 

“Donald Trump is running against a Joe Biden president who wants taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment of birth,” Vance said.

This is  and misleads about how rarely abortions are performed late in pregnancy. 

 of abortions in the U.S. — about 91% — occur in the first trimester. About 1% take place after 21 weeks, and far fewer than 1% occur in the third trimester and typically involve emergencies such as fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening medical emergencies affecting the pregnant woman.

Biden has said he supported Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and was overturned in June 2022, and wants  abortion access. 

Roe didn’t provide unrestricted access to abortion. It legalized abortion federally but also enabled the states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, typically around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Exceptions to that time frame typically were allowed when the pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk.

The Democratic-led  of 2021, which failed to pass the Senate, would have effectively codified a right to abortion while allowing for post-viability restrictions similar to Roe‘s.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden , which says federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the woman’s life. However, the amendment has continued to be included in congressional spending bills. 

Vance’s Comments About Women in Violent Marriages

Hannity asked Vance to explain controversial 2021 comments about women staying in violent marriages. 

“Both me and my mom actually were victims of domestic violence,” Vance told Hannity. “So, to say ‘Vance has supported women staying in violent marriages,’ I think it’s shameful for them to take a guy with my history and my background and say that that’s what I believe. It’s not what I believe. It’s not what I said.” 

The comments in question came from a 2021 event Vance participated in at Pacifica Christian High School in California. In a conversation about his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” the  about his experience being raised by his grandparents, following his mother’s divorces and struggles with drug addiction. 

“What is causing one generation to give up on fatherhood when the other one was so doggedly determined to stick it out even in tough times?” the moderator asked. 

Vance talked about the economic effect of men losing manufacturing jobs then discussed his grandparents’ marriage. 

In his memoirs, Vance detailed his grandparents’ relationship and told a story about Vance’s grandmother pouring lighter fluid on his grandfather and striking a match after he came home drunk. She had previously threatened to kill her husband if he came home drunk again, according to a  published by The Washington Post. 

Vance commended his grandparents for staying together, comparing it with younger generations. 

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that, like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’ 

“And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages.”

In response to a 2022  highlighting the comments, Jai Chabria, a strategist for Vance, said .

“This is a comment that he made where he’s talking about how it’s important that couples stay together for the kids, that we actually have good kids first,” he said. “All he is saying is that it is far too often the case where couples get divorced, they split up, and they don’t take the kids’ needs into consideration.”

Vance’s Comments About Rape, Abortion, and ‘Inconvenience’

Hannity asked Vance to discuss his position on abortion, allowing the senator to address his past comments that have been criticized. 

“Let me go back to the issue of abortion,” Hannity said. “And there was this article that said, ‘Oh, JD Vance said it’s inconvenient.'”

Vance told Hannity, “The Democrats have completely twisted my words. What I did say is that we sometimes in this society see babies as inconveniences, and I absolutely want us to change that.”

We looked into while he was running for Senate in 2022. His opponent claimed Vance had said that rape was inconvenient, but we found that’s not directly what Vance said. 

In a 2021 interview, Vance was asked whether laws should allow women to get abortions if they were victims of rape or incest. He said society should not view a pregnancy or birth resulting from rape or incest as “inconvenient.” 

“My view on this has been very clear, and I think the question betrays a certain presumption that is wrong,” Vance said in 2021. “It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society. The question really, to me, is about the baby.”

Editor’s note: This is excerpted from PolitiFact’s full coverage. You can read the .

This <a target="_blank" href="/elections/fact-check-jd-vance-trump-vice-president-nominee-views-on-abortion-domestic-violence/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”

Vice President JD Vance in a Sept. 28, 2025, Fox News interview

As the U.S. headed for a government shutdown, Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of forcing the closure because they want to give health care access to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

“Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens,” Vice President JD Vance  on “Fox News Sunday.”

President  House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Republican members of Congress have repeated this line.

It’s wrong.

Democrats have refused to vote for Republicans’ resolution to extend the federal spending deadline, and their position does, in part, hinge on health care spending. Democrats want to extend covid pandemic-era Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year and roll back Medicaid cuts in the tax and spending bill that Trump signed into law this summer. 

The  wouldn’t give health care to immigrants who lack legal status; that population is already largely ineligible for federally funded health care. Instead, the proposal would restore access to certain health care programs for legally present immigrants who will lose access under the Republican law.

The White House did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment for this fact check. Vance  of his talking point in another interview by saying it was included in the Democrats’ spending proposal. It’s not.

A  followed up with screenshots of the Democratic proposal repealing a section of the Republican law labeled “alien Medicaid eligibility.” It’s important to know that these changes would not give Medicaid access to immigrants who lack lawful status.

Vance defended his statement again in an Oct. 1 White House , saying former President Joe Biden “waived away illegal immigration status” that helped migrants access federal assistance. It’s important to note that many people  through humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status programs don’t automatically qualify for Medicaid; , and many people who entered the U.S. on humanitarian parole are required to wait five years before accessing it.

The Trump administration has ended humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status for many people, rendering them ineligible for Medicaid and health plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

We did not find evidence that Democrats want to spend “hundreds of billions” in costs for insuring migrants with unlawful presence.

Immigrants Lacking Legal Status Are Already Ineligible

Most federal health care dollars cannot be spent on health care for people in the U.S. who lack legal status. They cannot enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, and they are  through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. A small Medicaid program reimburses hospitals for uninsured emergency care, which can include immigrants in the country without authorization but is not exclusive to them.

States such as California and Illinois for people regardless of their immigration status, and the states pay for that. Federal law already banned states from using federal money for these programs. An  of the Republican spending law would have penalized such states by withholding funding, but that provision didn’t last.

People in the country without permission might receive some federally funded health care in emergency cases; in those situations, hospitals must provide care even if a person is uninsured or in the country illegally. Emergency Medicaid covers hospital care for immigrants who would be eligible for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. The Republican tax and spending law  hospitals can receive for emergency immigrant care.

Most Emergency Medicaid spending is used on childbirth. In all, it represented of total Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2023, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

GOP Law Limited Care Access for Immigrants With Legal Status

The Republican tax and spending law made several changes to health care eligibility for immigrants living in the country with permission. An estimated 1.4 million legal immigrants are expected to lose their health insurance, according to a  of  projections. 

Starting October 2026, the law will restrict eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to lawfully permanent residents, people from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, or Palau who lawfully reside in the U.S. under an , and certain .

Previously, a broad group, described as “,” was eligible for Medicaid and its related Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, including refugees and people granted asylum.

Some immigrants eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, such as lawful permanent residents, are  before accessing the benefits. 

The law also limited Affordable Care Act marketplace eligibility to the same group eligible for Medicaid and CHIP beginning Jan. 1, 2027. Previously, people who were described as “” were eligible. That group included the “qualified noncitizens” eligible for Medicaid and people with short-term statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status or international students.

Beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, for immigrants who entered the U.S. without authorization as children were previously eligible for Affordable Care Act coverage and its subsidies. They are ineligible since a took effect in August.

Democrats’ Proposal Would Restore Legal Immigrants’ Access

The Democrats’  would, in part,  the Affordable Care Act subsidies and roll back billions in Republican cuts to Medicaid and other health programs. 

The change would make Medicaid, CHIP, and Affordable Care Act coverage available to all legal immigrants who were previously eligible for it, such as refugees and people granted asylum.

The Democratic proposal would not broaden eligibility to federally funded health care programs to immigrants lacking legal status.

Vance said the Democratic policies would “give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens,” and the White House did not offer its source for that figure. When Johnson , he referenced the Congressional Budget Office. The KFF analysis of  found that the Republican law’s provisions related to legal immigrants would reduce federal spending by $131 billion; this projection did not include an estimate for people without legal status.

Our Ruling

Vance said, “Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”

Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are largely ineligible for the federally funded health care programs Medicare and Medicaid, and they cannot seek coverage in the Affordable Care Act marketplace or apply for subsidies.

The Democrats’ budget proposal would not change that.

The Democrats want to restore access to certain health care programs to legal immigrants who will lose access under the Republican tax and spending law — among other measures aimed at making Medicaid and Affordable Care Act insurance plans easier to keep. 

Their proposal would not grant federally supported health care benefits to people in the U.S. illegally, because they did not have access to them in the first place. The small amount of funding designated for Emergency Medicaid reimburses hospitals that provide emergency care to immigrants who would be eligible for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. Finally, we did not find evidence for Vance’s assertion that Democrats want “hundreds of billions” in health benefits for migrants in the country illegally. 

We rate the statement False.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/fact-check-immigrants-federal-health-care-shutdown-jd-vance-false/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“Everybody can get” the covid-19 vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the covid-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the its covid , limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe covid infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years — that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost — is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the .

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans vaccines recommended by the CDC. also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a .

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a covid shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel .

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, .

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a covid vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

‘Off-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a covid vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a covid vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children — and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor — shared clinical decision-making — and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

Covid vaccines cost about $142, according to the . It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a covid vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a covid vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the covid vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth — the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-access-fact-check/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Sitting in the Fiserv Forum, the convention’s Milwaukee venue, Vance took questions from host Sean Hannity and addressed criticism about his previous comments on domestic violence, abortion, and his 2016 disapproval of Trump.

A couple of times, Vance accused the media of twisting controversial comments about violent marriages and abortion exemptions. We took a closer look at four of his claims.

Vance Mischaracterizes Biden’s Stance on Abortion

Vance addressed his own and Trump’s position on abortion. He described Trump’s position “to let voters in states” decide abortion laws as “reasonable,” contrasting it with Biden’s. 

“Donald Trump is running against a Joe Biden president who wants taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment of birth,” Vance said.

This is  and misleads about how rarely abortions are performed late in pregnancy. 

 of abortions in the U.S. — about 91% — occur in the first trimester. About 1% take place after 21 weeks, and far fewer than 1% occur in the third trimester and typically involve emergencies such as fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening medical emergencies affecting the pregnant woman.

Biden has said he supported Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and was overturned in June 2022, and wants  abortion access. 

Roe didn’t provide unrestricted access to abortion. It legalized abortion federally but also enabled the states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, typically around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Exceptions to that time frame typically were allowed when the pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk.

The Democratic-led  of 2021, which failed to pass the Senate, would have effectively codified a right to abortion while allowing for post-viability restrictions similar to Roe‘s.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden , which says federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the woman’s life. However, the amendment has continued to be included in congressional spending bills. 

Vance’s Comments About Women in Violent Marriages

Hannity asked Vance to explain controversial 2021 comments about women staying in violent marriages. 

“Both me and my mom actually were victims of domestic violence,” Vance told Hannity. “So, to say ‘Vance has supported women staying in violent marriages,’ I think it’s shameful for them to take a guy with my history and my background and say that that’s what I believe. It’s not what I believe. It’s not what I said.” 

The comments in question came from a 2021 event Vance participated in at Pacifica Christian High School in California. In a conversation about his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” the  about his experience being raised by his grandparents, following his mother’s divorces and struggles with drug addiction. 

“What is causing one generation to give up on fatherhood when the other one was so doggedly determined to stick it out even in tough times?” the moderator asked. 

Vance talked about the economic effect of men losing manufacturing jobs then discussed his grandparents’ marriage. 

In his memoirs, Vance detailed his grandparents’ relationship and told a story about Vance’s grandmother pouring lighter fluid on his grandfather and striking a match after he came home drunk. She had previously threatened to kill her husband if he came home drunk again, according to a  published by The Washington Post. 

Vance commended his grandparents for staying together, comparing it with younger generations. 

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that, like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’ 

“And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages.”

In response to a 2022  highlighting the comments, Jai Chabria, a strategist for Vance, said .

“This is a comment that he made where he’s talking about how it’s important that couples stay together for the kids, that we actually have good kids first,” he said. “All he is saying is that it is far too often the case where couples get divorced, they split up, and they don’t take the kids’ needs into consideration.”

Vance’s Comments About Rape, Abortion, and ‘Inconvenience’

Hannity asked Vance to discuss his position on abortion, allowing the senator to address his past comments that have been criticized. 

“Let me go back to the issue of abortion,” Hannity said. “And there was this article that said, ‘Oh, JD Vance said it’s inconvenient.'”

Vance told Hannity, “The Democrats have completely twisted my words. What I did say is that we sometimes in this society see babies as inconveniences, and I absolutely want us to change that.”

We looked into while he was running for Senate in 2022. His opponent claimed Vance had said that rape was inconvenient, but we found that’s not directly what Vance said. 

In a 2021 interview, Vance was asked whether laws should allow women to get abortions if they were victims of rape or incest. He said society should not view a pregnancy or birth resulting from rape or incest as “inconvenient.” 

“My view on this has been very clear, and I think the question betrays a certain presumption that is wrong,” Vance said in 2021. “It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society. The question really, to me, is about the baby.”

Editor’s note: This is excerpted from PolitiFact’s full coverage. You can read the .

This <a target="_blank" href="/elections/fact-check-jd-vance-trump-vice-president-nominee-views-on-abortion-domestic-violence/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">