Tick Disease Program Funding Cut by Up to 20% Starting 2026, Despite Reauthorization

The Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act is essentially hitting the 'continue' button on several crucial programs designed to fight tick-borne diseases like Lyme, but it comes with a noticeable budget trim. This bill keeps the national strategy and local health department support running, which is good news for anyone living in areas where ticks are a growing problem. However, it also adjusts the authorized funding levels downward for the next five years.

The Budget Shrink: What $3 Million Less Means

For the years 2026 through 2030, this Act reduces the authorized spending ceiling for two major areas compared to the previous authorization (2021–2025). First, the national strategy for vector-borne diseases—the big-picture research and coordination—drops from $10 million authorized annually down to $8 million. That’s a 20% cut in the authorized ceiling for federal coordination efforts. Second, the support specifically earmarked for local health departments, which helps them track cases and run local prevention campaigns, drops from $20 million authorized annually to $19 million. While $1 million might not sound like much in the scheme of things, these are the funds that keep local public health nurses and educators on the front lines.

Think about it this way: if you live in a high-risk area, those local funds pay for things like public awareness campaigns or enhanced surveillance to track where the ticks are spreading. Reducing that authorized pot—even slightly—means less capacity for local health departments, which are often already stretched thin, to respond to a growing public health threat. Less funding authorization potentially translates to fewer educational flyers, fewer testing kits, or slower response times when a new outbreak hits.

Who’s Running the Show Now?

The bill also makes a structural change to the Vector-Borne Disease Strategy Group—the panel that guides the national response. Previously, the law specified exactly who had to be on the panel, ensuring a mix of experts. Now, the law simply says the Secretary should include “appropriate individuals” when forming the group. While this could allow for more flexibility to bring in new, relevant experts—say, a climate change specialist or a data scientist—it also introduces a lot of vagueness. The term “appropriate individuals” is wide open to interpretation. This means the Secretary has much more discretion over who gets a seat at the table. If you’re a patient advocate or a researcher, you might wonder if this new, less defined structure will still guarantee that the necessary voices are included to keep the strategy grounded in reality.