STOP TICKS Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance the federal government's coordinated response and increase funding for research, surveillance, and prevention of tick-borne diseases.
What it actually does
The STOP TICKS Act reauthorizes and expands federal efforts to combat tick-borne diseases by extending the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, increasing its federal agency and public membership, and broadening its scope to cover the entire federal government. It also reauthorizes and increases funding for regional centers of excellence in vector-borne diseases and for state and local health departments addressing these diseases.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, are a growing public health threat requiring a robust and coordinated federal response. They contend that expanding the working group to include more federal agencies will foster better interagency collaboration, while increased funding for research and local health departments is crucial for developing new treatments, improving surveillance, and implementing effective prevention strategies.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, expanding the working group to include numerous additional agencies could lead to bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency, potentially diluting focus rather than enhancing it. Concerns could also be raised about the effectiveness of simply increasing appropriations without specific mandates for how the funds are to be spent to achieve measurable outcomes, or that the proposed funding increases are insufficient to address the scale of the problem.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its provisions.
Section 2
Reauthorization and Expansion of Tick-Borne Disease Working Group
This section reauthorizes the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, ensuring its continued operation. It broadens the group's mandate from focusing solely on efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services to encompassing all relevant efforts across the entire Federal Government. Furthermore, it significantly expands the federal agency representation on the group from 7 to 13 agencies and increases public member representation from 7 to 10.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that expanding the working group's scope and membership is essential to create a truly comprehensive federal strategy. Including agencies like the Forest Service, National Park Service, and EPA acknowledges the environmental and ecological factors in tick-borne disease transmission, leading to more holistic prevention and control efforts. Increased public representation ensures patient and advocate perspectives are central to policy development.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that adding too many agencies could make the working group unwieldy and slow down decision-making, potentially hindering its effectiveness. They might argue that a smaller, more focused group could achieve better results, or that the expansion primarily serves to broaden political buy-in rather than streamline operations.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for comprehensive, multi-sectoral collaboration and the risk of bureaucratic inefficiency or diluted focus due to a larger, more diverse group.
Section 3
Reauthorization and Increased Funding for Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases
This section reauthorizes the program for Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases, extending their funding authorization for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. It also increases the authorized annual appropriation for these centers from $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 for each of those fiscal years. These centers are crucial for research, surveillance, and training related to diseases transmitted by vectors like ticks and mosquitoes.
Section 4
Enhanced Support to Assist Health Departments in Addressing Vector-Borne Diseases
This section reauthorizes and increases funding for programs that provide enhanced support to state and local health departments specifically for addressing vector-borne diseases. It extends the authorization for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and raises the annual appropriation from $20,000,000 to $21,000,000 for each of those years. This funding helps health departments improve surveillance, control, and public education efforts.
The bill expands the scope of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group from focusing solely on efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services to encompassing "all efforts across the Federal Government." It also significantly increases the number of federal agencies represented on the working group from 7 to 13, adding agencies from departments like Agriculture, Interior, EPA, and Defense.
Section 2(2) and 2(3)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing law. The brevity of the amendment is typical, but the substantive impact of expanding the scope and membership is significant.
Case for: Proponents argue this expansion is crucial for a truly integrated federal response, recognizing that tick-borne diseases involve environmental, agricultural, and military aspects beyond just public health. It ensures a whole-of-government approach.
Case against: Critics might suggest that such a broad expansion could lead to bureaucratic sprawl, making coordination more difficult and potentially diluting the focus of the working group. They might argue that a more targeted approach within HHS, with strong interagency liaisons, would be more effective.
Estimated impact: This change significantly broadens the federal government's strategic and operational coordination on tick-borne diseases, potentially impacting resource allocation and policy development across a wider array of agencies.