CDC Report on FY2018 TBD Funding

what do deer ticks look like?
Photo Credit: James Occi, (PhD cand.) LDA Scientific & Professional Advisory Board
The CDC released a report on FY 2018 tick-borne disease funding, which was requested by the Senate Appropriations Committee.  The report includes an overview of the request from the Senate Appropriations Committee. It also provides an update on CDC’s work with states and progress in that area. This section includes information on Ticknet, a public health network and on the misuse of the CDC surveillance criteria including a physician survey published in Dec. 2019.
There is also a section that provides an update on how funds were spent when “in FY 2017,  CDC received $10.675M for Lyme disease.”  Twenty percent (20%) of that went to surveillance, research, and public health program implementation. Seventeen percent (17%) went to state activities, 14% went to Emerging Infection Program cooperative agreement for 10 state health departments who work with academic institutions, federal agencies, public health and clinical labs for vector-borne diseases. That funding also supported CDC’s infrastructure for surveillance, research and public health including integrated Pest Management for prevention of vector-borne diseases. 
CDC is also working with Colorado State University to develop a new type of test using metabolomics to diagnose early Lyme disease, which CDC says may be more sensitive than the two-tier test. 
FROM LDA: Read the 3-page report for more details, but note that the report is unclear and appears to not only address how these monies were expended for Lyme/TBD but also for vector-borne diseases. Also note in the last paragraph of section III, that HHS still maintains an internal tick-borne disease working group with CDC, NIH, and FDA. Do not be confused.  That working group is NOT the one Lyme patients and advocates were successful in getting created through legislation and is covered under FACA, meeting in public in DC. This working group meets and deliberates without the benefit of transparency and without a public voice.