Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill extends federal funding for tick-borne disease research and public health support for five years, albeit at slightly reduced annual authorized levels, and streamlines consultation for the national strategy.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes two key programs under the Public Health Service Act related to vector-borne diseases, including tick-borne illnesses. Specifically, it extends funding for the National Strategy and Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Disease and for enhanced support to health departments. It also slightly reduces the authorized annual appropriation levels for both programs for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and modifies the consultation requirements for the National Strategy.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that reauthorizing these programs is crucial for continuing vital research, surveillance, and public health efforts to combat the growing threat of tick-borne and other vector-borne diseases. They contend that maintaining federal investment, even with minor adjustments, ensures continuity in protecting public health and supporting state and local health departments. The modification to consultation for the National Strategy is presented as a way to streamline the process and allow for more flexible expert input.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might argue that the reduction in authorized funding, even if slight, could hinder the effectiveness of these programs at a time when vector-borne diseases are a persistent and evolving public health challenge. Some might also question the removal of the specific Tick-Borne Disease Working Group from consultation, suggesting it could dilute specialized input into the National Strategy.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)(2)
Reauthorization and Funding for National Strategy and Regional Centers of Excellence
This provision reauthorizes the National Strategy and Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Disease for an additional five fiscal years, from 2026 through 2030. It sets the authorized annual appropriation level for these programs at $8,000,000 for each of these fiscal years, a decrease from the previous authorization of $10,000,000 annually.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that continued funding for these centers is vital for advancing scientific understanding, developing new diagnostics and treatments, and coordinating a national response to vector-borne diseases. They contend that the reauthorization ensures stability for ongoing critical work.
Critics contend
Opponents, if any, might express concern that the reduction in authorized funding could limit the scope or pace of research and development, potentially slowing progress in combating these diseases.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for continued federal investment in vector-borne disease research and strategy with a slight reduction in the authorized funding level, potentially reflecting fiscal constraints or a re-evaluation of program needs.
Section 2(b)
Reauthorization and Funding for Enhanced Support to Health Departments
This provision reauthorizes federal support to assist state and local health departments in addressing vector-borne diseases for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. It sets the authorized annual appropriation for this support at $19,000,000 for each of these fiscal years, which is a reduction from the previous authorization of $20,000,000 annually.
This provision amends the Public Health Service Act to change the individuals consulted for the National Strategy on vector-borne disease. It replaces specific language requiring consultation with 'the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group established under section 2062 of the 21st Century Cures Act' with the more general phrase 'appropriate individuals'.
Section 2(a)(1)
Why it matters:This change could be seen as a standard legislative practice to streamline or update consultation requirements, allowing for more flexibility in expert input. Alternatively, it could be viewed as a way to quietly remove a specific, congressionally mandated working group from a key advisory role.
Case for: Proponents might argue that this change provides greater flexibility to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to consult with the most relevant and current experts, rather than being tied to a specific, potentially outdated, working group. It allows for dynamic adaptation to evolving scientific understanding and public health needs.
Case against: Critics might contend that removing the specific mandate to consult the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group could reduce the transparency and accountability of the consultation process, potentially leading to less specialized or comprehensive input on tick-borne diseases. The working group was established with specific expertise and stakeholder representation.
Estimated impact: This change primarily impacts the process of developing the National Strategy, potentially altering the composition and specific expertise of advisory bodies, rather than having a direct financial impact.