Hepatitis B vaccine cut infections in kids by 99% and is safe
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The hepatitis B birth‑dose vaccine has been credited with collapsing pediatric HBV infection rates — reporting a roughly 99% decline in infections among children since universal newborn vaccination began [1] [2]. Multiple recent reviews and U.S. public‑health agencies continue to describe the vaccine as safe and highly effective, even as the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted in December 2025 to shift from a universal birth‑dose recommendation to “individual‑based” decision‑making for infants born to mothers who test negative for HBV [3] [4] [2].
1. The public‑health success story: infections fell ~99% after universal newborn vaccination
Decades of routine childhood immunization, including the policy of giving a first hepatitis B dose at birth since 1991, are associated in U.S. reporting and health‑system analyses with a roughly 99% reduction in hepatitis B infections among infants and children [1] [2]. Journalistic and public‑health outlets attribute that drop to widespread infant immunization and to programs like Vaccines for Children that expanded access [2] [1].
2. Safety and effectiveness: what official reviews and researchers state
Comprehensive safety reviews, randomized trials, long‑term follow‑up studies and national surveillance systems are cited repeatedly in ACIP briefings and independent reviews as showing the hepatitis B vaccine is safe when given at birth and highly effective — producing high seroprotection rates (often cited 89–99% in trials) and preventing perinatal transmission [5] [6] [7]. State health departments and academic medical centers continue to say the vaccine has been “extensively tested and proven safe for more than 30 years” [8] [9].
3. The ACIP policy change and its rationale
On Dec. 5, 2025, ACIP voted 8–3 to recommend “individual‑based decision‑making” (shared clinical decision‑making) rather than a blanket universal birth‑dose for infants born to HBsAg‑negative mothers; the committee had earlier recommended universal prenatal testing for pregnant people [3] [10]. ACIP members and presenters raised questions about risk stratification, testing coverage, vaccine scheduling and parental choice — and the panel heard briefings from vaccine manufacturers during deliberations [3] [11].
4. Immediate reactions: medical community objections and intent to continue existing practice
Major pediatric and infectious‑disease voices warn the new advisory stance could reverse gains and increase pediatric risk. Several hospitals, state health departments and professional groups said they will continue recommending the birth dose within 24 hours, calling the vaccine “safe, exceptionally effective” and criticizing the vote as unsupported by new safety concerns [2] [9] [12]. Commentators note ACIP’s new membership was appointed by HHS Secretary RFK Jr., a development cited in news reports as relevant context for the vote [4] [13].
5. Evidence gaps and contested claims in the ACIP debate
Fact‑checking and news outlets found that some presenters at the meeting made misleading or unsupported statements; independent reviews emphasize there were no new safety signals presented to justify restricting the birth dose [7] [14]. ACIP documents and CDC slide decks show high seroprotection in trials and that routine schedules were built on decades of evidence, underscoring that the change is policy‑driven rather than prompted by fresh safety or effectiveness failures [5] [15].
6. Operational risks: testing gaps and timing vulnerabilities
Health experts raised operational concerns: prenatal testing is recommended, but testing is not universal and can miss infections acquired late in pregnancy or results that don’t get reported, leaving some newborns unprotected if they do not receive a birth dose [15] [12]. Critics argue that relying on maternal test status and later shared decision‑making could allow perinatal and early postnatal transmissions that universal birth dosing helped prevent [15] [12].
7. Balancing parental choice, coverage and population protection
ACIP framed its vote as supporting parental‑provider shared decision‑making about the birth dose for infants of test‑negative mothers; proponents framed this as respecting individual risk assessment [3]. Opponents say that population‑level benefits and the practical limits of prenatal testing argue for keeping a universal birth‑dose policy to maintain the ~99% decline in pediatric infections [1] [2].
Limitations and reporting notes: available sources do not provide long‑term modeled estimates of how the ACIP change will affect pediatric hepatitis B incidence over the next decade; they do show current empirical declines and summarize trial, surveillance and guidance materials regarding safety and effectiveness [1] [5] [6].