‘Come, mama. Come, mama’: NC must help families cut off from each other by COVID-19

Linda Sutton moved from Burlington to Durham to be nearer her son, a 37-year-old with autism who lives at the state’s Murdoch Developmental Center in Butner. But being nearer hasn’t helped her close the distance imposed by COVID-19 visitor restrictions. She hasn’t been able to see her son in person for 10 months.

Sutton said he is mostly non-verbal and is not aware of what ended his once weekly visits home and direct contact with his mother. But she felt a pang during a recent Zoom call when her usually silent son said, “Come, mama. Come, mama.”

This plaintive appeal echoes the feelings of thousands of disabled and elderly cut off from their families as institutions try to keep out the coronavirus. Widespread vaccinations may eventually open the doors, but the isolation residents have endured should force North Carolina to consider why so many people are in institutional settings in the first place.

Had there been more housing options for the disabled and elderly, many could have weathered the pandemic in the company of loved ones. Instead, they are in large group settings and subject to blanket restrictions that are often ineffective. For instance, Murdoch has had more than 330 coronavirus cases and four residents have died. Despite the visitor cutoff, Sutton’s son caught the virus, though his symptoms were mild.

North Carolina must weigh how to reduce the mass housing of people that leaves them both more exposed to infectious disease and more prone to the psychological pain of isolation. “We owe them a special duty to take care,” said Corye Dunn, director of the advocacy group Disability Rights North Carolina. “We did not do that. Over half the deaths were people living in congregant facilities. We failed them.”

We owe the residents of long-term care facilities what we have long owed them: better trained and more numerous staff members, effective inspections and meaningful fines for violators and a recognition of society’s obligations to its frail elderly and disabled people. Perhaps after so many deaths and so much isolation, Gov. Roy Cooper and the Republican-led General Assembly will make meeting these long neglected needs a priority.

But what we also owe these residents and their families are more options to a nursing home or a state institution. Supporting community homes with only a handful of residents or paying family members who provide care along with visiting aides would give families a choice other than putting a loved one into an institutional setting.

“If it’s going to change, it’s going to have to change now,” said William Lamb, board chairman of the Friends of Residents in Long Term Care. “There’s going to have to be a concerted campaign because, if not, we’re going to go back to business as usual.”

This week Indiana state officials did make change a priority. They announced plans to increase access to home- and community-based services so more of the state’s elderly residents can remain in their homes or smaller settings.

“This effort has been galvanized by COVID, with a demand by Hoosiers for a choice on where and how they should age,” said Jennifer Sullivan, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. “This is the right time and the right place for collaboration and meaningful change.” Sullivan called for expanded choices a week after Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb focused on the issue in his State of the State address.

North Carolina’s leaders should likewise be bold. It won’t be easy. Republican lawmakers – tightfisted about all but tax cuts – will question the price. And the nursing home industry won’t want to lose a share of its market. But the ones who should speak loudest to the conscience of North Carolina are those in institutions and nursing homes who have not been heard.