To the Editor:
Re “Covid Funds Shrinking, Paid Family Caregivers Face Big Cutbacks” (news article, March 5):
The story of Kacey Poynter and her son, Sonny, puts a spotlight on the precarious state of family caregiving in America. Indiana’s decision to slash funding for its attendant care program threatens to throw families like Ms. Poynter’s into financial turmoil and disrupt the critical care their loved ones require.
Indiana is just the latest state grappling with this issue. The bigger picture reveals a fragmented system struggling under the weight of insufficient federal investment. The influx of federal pandemic funds offered temporary relief, allowing states like Indiana to expand caregiver support programs.
However, family caregivers were hurting far before the pandemic, with 19 million people reporting high levels of emotional stress. Now, as these funds dry up, states and family caregivers are left scrambling.
To ensure that family caregivers can continue providing vital care for their loved ones, Congress must invest in our nation’s care infrastructure. This includes allocating sufficient funding for home- and community-based services, as well as a national paid family and medical leave program.
Additionally, swift implementation of the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers, released by the Biden administration in 2022, is essential to recognize the irreplaceable role that caregivers play in our society.
By investing in family caregivers in Indiana and in every state, we’re investing in a stronger future for all families.
Jason Resendez
Washington
The writer is the president and C.E.O. of the National Alliance for Caregiving.
To the Editor:
“Staffing Shortages at Nursing Homes Persist” (front page, March 1) reinforces the urgent need for the U.S. to develop a coherent approach to the long-term care needs of our aging population.
The pandemic underscored problems in nursing homes that had long been apparent. It also highlighted a longstanding bias toward institutional care for low-income people. Medicaid, the largest source of funding for long-term services, is required to pay for nursing home care, but not for home- and community-based services.
A National Academy of Social Insurance report, “Social Insurance During the Pandemic: Successes, Shortcomings and Policy Options for the Future,” examines the devastating impact of Covid-19 on our nation’s nursing home residents and staffs. Residents of color were disproportionately harmed; their mortality rates were significantly higher than those of white residents.
Congress needs to consider reforms to increase nursing home staffing and improve pay and working conditions. Congress might also consider expanding the Medicare-funded graduate medical education programs to include nurse training. This would help subsidize the cost of such training and address the nursing shortage in nursing homes.
As your article notes, many experts believe that our current approach to long-term care is “fundamentally broken.” It is time for a national solution.
William J. Arnone
Washington
The writer is C.E.O. of the National Academy of Social Insurance.
Orwell in a Honda
To the Editor:
Re “Watch the Way You’re Driving. Carmakers Are Watching, Too” (front page, March 12):
I was driving on Interstate 95 in Connecticut recently when a car entering the highway cut me off. I swerved into the left lane, causing my car to fishtail before I regained control. My quick action averted a serious and possibly fatal accident.
That swerve is an example of the kind of noncontextual information that auto insurers are gathering from stealth computer programs in cars like my 2023 Honda Civic. Had I activated “Driver Feedback,” that incident could have led to higher insurance rates for me — instead of for the driver who nearly caused an accident.
In 2024, Big Brother sneaks into the back seat of our cars and watches every move we make. The view from there, however, is not always accurate.
Betty J. Cotter
Shannock, R.I.
To the Editor:
After reading this article, I feel as if I hit a big pothole going 50 miles an hour. I have questions: What is the car company’s cut for providing information to the insurer? If the insurer charges 21 percent more, as happened to a driver quoted in the article, does the car manufacturer get 10 percent of that?
To generate even more revenue, I suggest that car companies force us to watch commercials (like when you’re filling up at the gas station) on the large screens that are in every car now. Enjoy your drive!
Brant Thomas
Cold Spring, N.Y.
Lessons From Covid
To the Editor:
Re “Four Years On, Covid Is Here to Stay,” by Daniela J. Lamas (Opinion guest essay, March 11):
In her wonderful article, Dr. Lamas beautifully described how she is no longer mortified by Covid but carried its grave lessons forward. As an infectious diseases specialist, I have had similar experiences.
Ignorance is not bliss. To dispel any magical and potentially costly thinking, I want to elaborate on three important lessons.
The first lesson is that science and cooperation prevailed. Let us celebrate and remind ourselves that through mutual respect and a common goal, we were able to tame a deadly virus.
The second lesson is that straightforward and practical infection-control measures such as distancing and quarantining were effective and bought us the time needed to develop a vaccine.
Finally, the third lesson is that the vaccine worked.
Like it or not, Covid is here to stay. We will all need to boldly accept this fact. We need not be fearful, though, because we now understand it and have hopefully learned at least three critical lessons that will prevent Covid from resurging and causing another deadly pandemic.
To the Editor:
Re “Can You Create a Diverse College Class Without Affirmative Action?” (The Upshot, nytimes.com, March 9):
The analysis in your piece shows that highly selective colleges might achieve racial diversity using race-blind approaches if they put extensive weight on socioeconomic factors.
Our own analysis produced similar findings. But we also show that such a change would require a substantial increase in financial aid so that low-income students could afford to enroll. For all but perhaps a dozen or two institutions that have very large endowments, that is likely more than they can muster.
In fact, financial aid already falls $10 billion short of what low-income students at selective colleges need. The logic is simple: Swapping out 35 percent of high-income students for lower-income students, as in one of your simulations, would be very expensive. The newly selected students would need tens of thousands of dollars in financial aid per year.
Increasing the enrollment of lower-income and Black, Latino and Native American students at selective colleges is an important goal that institutions should prioritize. But the cost would be substantial. Insufficient financial aid is a problem across higher education, one that makes using income-based admissions preferences like those described in the Upshot analysis an uphill climb.
Phillip Levine
Sarah Reber
Dr. Levine is a professor of economics at Wellesley College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Reber is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings.