The Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act (S.2294) amends two existing Public Health Service Act provisions to extend federal authority for national strategy and regional centers on vector‑borne disease and for enhanced support to state and local health departments. It lowers the previously authorized funding levels and removes an explicit statutory reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group, replacing that phrase with a broader "appropriate individuals" standard.
For public health officials, grantee organizations, and agencies that run or rely on CDC vector‑borne disease programs, the bill preserves program continuity but tightens dollars: it authorizes $8 million per year for section 317U activities and $19 million per year for the enhanced support program for fiscal years 2026–2030. The change increases administrative discretion but raises questions about capacity and oversight at a time when tick‑borne illnesses are rising geographically.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 247b–23 (section 317U) to replace a specific statutory reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group with a generic "appropriate individuals" standard and reduces the authorized funding from $10 million to $8 million per year for FY2026–2030. It also amends 42 U.S.C. 300hh–32(c) (section 2822(c)) to change the previously authorized $20 million per year to $19 million per year for the same period.
Who It Affects
Primary stakeholders are the CDC and HHS program offices that manage national strategy and regional centers for vector‑borne diseases, established regional centers of excellence and their host institutions, and state and local health departments that receive enhanced support grants. Advocacy groups and advisory bodies that relied on the former statutory reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group will also be affected.
Why It Matters
This reauthorization keeps core federal programs operating while trimming nominal funding and expanding administrative discretion over advisory input. For grantees and health departments, the bill signals continued federal commitment but with tighter resources and less statutory specificity about stakeholder engagement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.2294 is narrowly focused: it revises two statutory provisions that underpin federal work on ticks and other vector‑borne diseases. First, it alters the statutory language that governs the national strategy and the network of regional centers for vector‑borne disease (section 317U).
The change swaps a specific reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group and other named advisors for the open phrase "appropriate individuals," and it replaces the prior $10 million per‑year authorization with $8 million per year for FY2026–2030. Second, the bill adjusts the authorized level for the program that provides enhanced support to state and local health departments (section 2822(c)) from $20 million to $19 million per year for the same fiscal window.
Mechanically, the bill amends the Public Health Service Act by updating statutory text and authorized funding amounts; it does not create new programs, change eligibility rules, or add new reporting or oversight mandates. Because these are authorizing changes, actual cash flow will still require subsequent appropriations acts; the bill sets the ceiling that Congress may appropriate against.
The text preserves existing program structures, meaning regional centers, CDC technical assistance, and grants to health departments remain authorized entities under federal law.The most consequential non‑financial change is the removal of the explicit statutory reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group. That shift gives HHS and CDC more flexibility to select advisers or stakeholders but removes a named statutory anchor that previously guaranteed a particular consultative channel.
Practically, grantees and advocacy organizations should expect continued program operations but should also prepare for slightly smaller grant pools and for administrative decisions about stakeholder engagement being less tied to a specific, statutorily recognized group.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2(a) amends 42 U.S.C. 247b–23 (section 317U) to replace the phrase referencing the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group with the broader term "appropriate individuals.", Section 2(a) reduces the authorized annual funding for the national strategy and regional centers from $10,000,000 to $8,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026 through 2030.
Section 2(b) amends 42 U.S.C. 300hh–32(c) to change the authorized annual amount for enhanced support to state and local health departments from $20,000,000 to $19,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026 through 2030.
The bill performs statutory edits only; it does not establish new grant programs, change grant eligibility, or add reporting requirements—authorization remains subject to annual appropriations.
The text preserves existing program architecture (national strategy, regional centers, and enhanced state/local support) but shifts advisory language to a discretionary standard that could alter stakeholder access to formal consultation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the enactment as the "Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act." This is purely stylistic but signals continuity with prior legislation named for the same initiative and avoids ambiguity in later statutory references.
Updates advisory language and lowers authorized funding for national strategy and regional centers
This provision performs two edits to the statutory subsection that authorizes a national strategy and regional Centers of Excellence for vector‑borne disease. First, it removes the prior explicit reference to the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group and substitutes the open term "appropriate individuals," which broadens who may be consulted but removes a statutorily named advisory channel. Second, it replaces the previous $10 million annual authorization with $8 million per year for FY2026–2030. Practically, program managers retain statutory authority to run the programs but face a lower authorization ceiling and expanded discretion on advisory inputs; it is silent on allocation formulas or minimum grant sizes.
Reduces authorized funding for enhanced support to health departments
This amendment modifies the authorized amount for the CDC program that provides enhanced support to state and local health departments, cutting the prior $20 million per year authorization to $19 million per year for FY2026–2030. The statutory change maintains the program's authorization and purpose but reduces the top‑line available for appropriation; the bill does not alter award criteria, matching requirements, or programmatic priorities within the statute itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector‑Borne Disease — the bill keeps these centers authorized and eligible for federal support, preserving program continuity and enabling ongoing partnerships with state health departments and universities.
- State and local health departments — they retain access to the enhanced support program under section 2822, ensuring continued technical assistance and grant eligibility even though the authorized pool is slightly smaller.
- HHS/CDC program offices — the substitution of "appropriate individuals" grants these agencies greater administrative flexibility to select advisers, shift stakeholder engagement processes, and streamline consultations without being tied to a specific named working group.
Who Bears the Cost
- Existing grantees (regional centers and awardees) — reduced authorized ceilings (from $10M to $8M and $20M to $19M) likely mean smaller awards or fewer funded activities if appropriation levels track the new authorizations.
- Patient advocacy groups and members of the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group — losing the named statutory reference may reduce guaranteed formal access and visibility in the consultative process, forcing reliance on agency discretion to participate.
- State and local program planners — with a smaller federal authorization ceiling, health departments may need to prioritize interventions, scale back planned expansions, or seek alternative funding to maintain surveillance and response capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—maintaining federal support for vector‑borne disease infrastructure while exercising fiscal restraint and giving agencies more discretion—against the risk that smaller real dollars and less statutory specificity about advisory channels will weaken program capacity and stakeholder transparency at a time when tick‑borne disease threats are expanding.
Two implementation challenges stand out. First, the authorized funding cuts are modest in nominal terms but do not account for inflation or rising program costs; an $8 million authorization in FY2026 buys materially less than $10 million did in the early 2020s.
That gap can translate into reduced grant sizes, fewer awards, or deferred activities, yet the bill does not provide allocation guidance or transition rules for multi‑year grants. Second, swapping a named advisory reference for the amorphous "appropriate individuals" increases agency flexibility but reduces statutory transparency.
Agencies can avoid binding consultation pathways, which may speed administrative action but also make it harder for stakeholders to predict or demand access.
The bill is also silent on appropriation mechanics. Authorizing language sets a ceiling; it does not itself appropriate cash.
If Congress appropriates less than the new authorized amounts the programs will operate under tighter budgets than even these reduced ceilings imply. Finally, the statute preserves program structure without adding new reporting, evaluation, or stakeholder‑engagement requirements, leaving oversight tools and performance metrics to existing agency frameworks rather than to law—an intentional delegation that shifts the burden of accountability onto agency rulemaking and internal processes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.