S-1657-116
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 287.
Sponsored by Susan Collins (R-ME)
What it does
The Kay Hagan Tick Act would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a national strategy for addressing vector-borne diseases — illnesses spread by insects and arachnids such as ticks, mosquitoes, and fleas. The bill focuses particularly on tick-borne diseases like Lyme disease. It does not itself fund programs or mandate specific treatments, but would direct HHS to create a coordinated federal plan.
Who benefits
People diagnosed with or at risk for tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and anaplasmosis — estimated at roughly 476,000 new Lyme disease cases per year in the U.S. alone. Residents of heavily affected regions (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Upper Midwest) would see the most direct benefit. Researchers and public health agencies seeking a coordinated federal framework would also benefit. Outdoor workers (farmers, foresters, landscapers) and people who spend time in wooded or grassy areas face elevated exposure and could benefit from a national prevention strategy.
Who is hurt
No group faces direct, immediate harm from the bill's core requirement. Federal agencies, particularly HHS, would bear new administrative burdens and costs associated with developing and maintaining the national strategy. If the strategy ultimately redirects existing public health funding, programs addressing other diseases could see reduced attention or resources. State and local health departments may face pressure to align their programs with the federal strategy, potentially limiting their flexibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that vector-borne diseases represent a growing and underaddressed public health threat — Lyme disease cases have more than doubled over the past two decades, and diseases like West Nile virus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever cause serious illness and death each year. They contend that the federal government currently lacks a unified, coordinated response, leaving patients, doctors, and researchers without clear national guidance. A formal HHS strategy would align research priorities, improve surveillance, standardize prevention messaging, and help ensure that funding reaches the communities most affected. Supporters also point out that the bill is named for Senator Kay Hagan, who died from complications of tick-borne encephalitis in 2019, underscoring the real human cost of inaction.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that directing HHS to produce a national strategy is a largely symbolic mandate that may generate bureaucratic activity without delivering measurable improvements in patient outcomes or disease rates. They contend that existing agencies — including the CDC and NIH — already conduct research and publish guidance on tick-borne diseases, making a new overarching strategy potentially duplicative. Critics may also raise concerns that a broad federal strategy could crowd out state and local public health initiatives that are better tailored to regional conditions, or that without dedicated funding attached to the mandate, the strategy will lack the resources needed to produce meaningful results. Some may argue that Congress should instead direct specific, funded interventions rather than tasking an agency with producing a plan.