Published in the Blackstone Valley Call & Times on September 8, 2026
By Herb Weiss
As reported by national media, President Donald Trump, standing in front of grocery items during an Aug. 24 campaign press conference at a golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, President Trump declared, “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” He pledged to lower the costs of everyday goods, including groceries and cars, as well as energy prices.
During his campaign, Trump on several occasions linked lower prices to an increase in the country’s domestic energy production by using the phrase “drill, baby, drill”. He maintained that cheaper energy would decrease the cost of producing and transporting food and other goods.
The time is running out; since there are 62 days left until the midterm elections, a national press campaign has been held as part of the ‘Republican Price Tag Campaign’ organized by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works and the Economic Security Project to advise voters about the promises made by Trump and congressional Republicans to reduce household costs and to argue that those promises have not been kept.
Household Expenses Skyrocket
Hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Economic Security Project Action, Social Security Works and Navigator Research, the virtual briefing highlighted an estimate that American families are paying $3,800 more each year for health care, food, energy, clothing and other necessities under President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Unrig Our Economy Campaign Director Leor Tal, who moderated the call, said Trump and congressional Republicans pledged to rein in rising prices, but argued that Republican economic policies have instead increased costs for working families and small businesses.
While wealthy Americans are getting tax breaks, Tal charged, working families are paying more for health care, groceries, energy and clothing. “Families are feeling every dollar of the Republican Price Tag,” she said.
During the 30-minute press call, two Democratic lawmakers and small business owners from Michigan, Arizona and Nebraska shared firsthand accounts of how rising costs are affecting their livelihoods. They pointed to tariffs and declining consumer spending as making it more difficult to operate their businesses and provide for their families.
In addition, Washington, D.C.-based Navigator Research, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research organization founded in 2018, presented polling data on how Americans view the economy and the rising costs hitting their household budgets.
“The Joint Economic Committee issued new analysis that found the average American family has had to pay almost $4,000 more because of rising prices under the policies and actions of this administration and my Republican friends in Congress,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).
“What’s driving this figure? The biggest buckets are health care, grocery, energy costs, and housing,” said Beyer, the top-ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Beyer also pointed to tariffs. “Our tariff policy is absolutely the highest it’s been since before Smoot-Hawley,” he said.
Health care and food assistance cuts are also hitting families, Beyer charged, citing changes affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Tariffs Drive Up Household Costs
Rep. Gabe Amo, representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, charged that congressional Republicans are supporting “a tariff regime that is raising costs” while taking the focus away from the economic challenges facing Americans.
During Aug. recess, Amo met with constituents across the first Congressional District and heard that people are feeling the squeeze. They told him how hard it was to afford groceries. Primary care providers shared how the Trump administration’s cuts to health care are making it harder for people to get care.
“I’m working with Unrig Our Economy and Social Security Works to make sure these voices are heard,” he said.But Amo brought a little optimism to the call’s otherwise downbeat assessment of the economy.
“I’m an optimist. I believe we can do better and will do better,” he said, adding that voters will have a choice in the upcoming election over the direction the nation takes.
“I look forward to continuing to hear from the people facing the challenges created by this administration and working on behalf of all Americans who deserve a government that wants them to have a better life,” Amo said.
For Michael Howard, a small-business owner in Macomb County, Michigan, rising prices have hit both his family and his business.
“As a parent, the rising cost of our economy feels crushing. And then as a small business owner, having that experience magnified is also pretty devastating for our business,” he said.
Howard says rising costs have made it harder to maintain staffing while customers have less money to spend. “As a dad just trying to put food on the table for my family, these increases to the cost of gas and necessities really set us back,” he said.
Increased lumber costs have also affected Howard’s custom furniture business. “The tariff policy is absolutely devastating for someone who builds with lumber,” he said.
Jenn Mawcinitt, owner of Wildlings Toy Boutique in Phoenix, Arizona, sees the impact when customers walk through her door.
“We have seen that our customers are having a harder time buying necessities like their gas and their food and their school supplies,” she said.
Tariffs, she says, have also dramatically increased toy prices. A mother who once came into her store looking for a $20 birthday gift may now find the same type of toy priced at $ 29.99.
“I think that people were promised lower costs during this administration, and I’ve heard it over and over again,” Mawcinitt said. “All I have seen is how this is affecting families, and how costs are rising at an exorbitant rate.”
Former York, Nebraska, business owner Jeff Du pointed to the rising cost of farm equipment. He said that new irrigation equipment that cost about $68,000 five years ago now costs more than $110,000.
Du says tariffs are helping drive up machinery costs. Add increased labor expenses, he noted, and farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase new equipment, with some leaving the business altogether.
During the final minutes of the virtual call, Melissa Tufanian, managing director of Navigator Research, turned to the polling numbers.
According to Tufanian, 73% of Americans view the economy negatively. More than three in five Americans are uneasy about their personal finances, which she said is the highest level since the start of Trump’s second term.
The polling also found that 25% of Americans are delaying the purchase of a home or car, while 15% have delayed or avoided medical care to save money. Another 25% are taking on more debt or using buy-now, pay-later programs, even to purchase groceries. Twenty percent reported withdrawing money from emergency funds to pay bills.
Navigator’s polling even found that nearly one in 10 Americans have sold blood plasma for extra income.
On the other hand, Republicans offer a much different assessment of the economy. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) argues that Republican tax cuts are allowing workers and families to keep more of their paychecks while encouraging businesses to invest, expand and hire.
Following the release of the August jobs report, Smith pointed to increased private-sector hiring and manufacturing growth as evidence that Republican economic policies are working.
The Trump administration also rejects Democratic criticism that its tariff policies are simply resulting in higher consumer prices. The White House argues that tariffs are prompting foreign companies to produce in the United States, thereby protecting American industries from cheaper foreign competition and leading to greater investment and more job creation within the country.
A Final Note…
Almost two months later, according to Fortune, Trump told a crowd at Wheeler High School in Marietta, Georgia, that affordability was “a word made up by the Democrats.”
AARP released the 2026 Financial Security Trends Survey on May 28, finding that 37% of older adults feel financially insecure, while 60% worry about having enough money to last through their retirement years.
Democrats certainly aren’t treating affordability as a made-up issue. They are betting that what voters, especially older voters, pay at the grocery store, gas pump, doctor’s office, and checkout counter will help determine who controls Congress after the midterm elections.
James Carville, a top strategist for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign, famously summed up that winning campaign’s political strategy in just five words: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
More than three decades later, Democrats are dusting off Carville’s political playbook.
Whether it works again will be up to the voters.
Tag Archives for AARP
Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security
Published in RINewsToday on August 17, 2026
Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is projected to reach insolvency by late 2032, triggering an automatic 22% across-the-board benefit cut if Congress fails to act, according to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released June 9. The clock is ticking — fewer than 2,300 days remain.
What would that mean for older Americans? Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), put a dollar figure on the potential impact in his August 5 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Acomparable benefit reduction imposed today, he said, would mean an average loss of about $500 a month for beneficiaries.
For a typical newly retired couple, that could translate into an annual loss of roughly $12,000 in Social Security income — a substantial hit for households that depend on the program to pay for housing, food, utilities, health care and other basic expenses. Goldwein’s testimony underscores what the Trustees’ numbers mean beyond the percentages: a future across-the-board cut could have a very real impact on retirees’ daily lives.
Senate Finance Panel Takes Up Social Security’s Future
Just nine days before Social Security’s 91st birthday on Aug. 15, the Senate Committee on Finance held an Aug. 5 hearing, “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency,” to spotlight the program’s looming financial challenges and explore possible legislative approaches. The hearing brought together policy experts and advocacy organizations to discuss how Congress might move toward a solution.
The more than two-hour hearing examined the merits of using a commission versus the regular legislative process. Senators and witnesses also discussed increasing revenue from higher earners, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, adjusting benefits, and changing the retirement age.
Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) opened the hearing by warning that Social Security’s OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act, incoming program revenues would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits, he said.
The last comprehensive congressional effort to address Social Security’s solvency took place more than 40 years ago, culminating in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Signed by President Ronald Reagan, the bipartisan legislation gradually raised the full retirement age, subjected some higher-income Social Security benefits to federal income taxation and increased payroll taxes to strengthen the program’s finances.
Crapo pointed to the 1983 reforms as an example of how an outside commission might help break legislative gridlock. He also cited his participation in a later bipartisan fiscal commission, commonly known as the Greenspan Commission, whose recommendations ultimately failed to win the support needed to move forward.
Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged the idea of creating another commission, arguing that Congress should take responsibility for solving the problem rather than sending it to an outside panel.
“Instead of ‘talking about talking,’ this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view,” Wyden said.
Crapo responded that the hearing was not intended to promote a specific proposal but to examine a broad range of ideas.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed back against Democratic criticism that Republicans were seeking to cut benefits, saying Congress needs to be willing to consider different approaches to the problem.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took a much harsher view of the program, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and arguing that money collected from taxpayers has already been spent.
Rhode Island’s Whitehouse Calls for Answers
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Republicans for a specific plan to address Social Security’s finances.
“Where’s the Republican proposal? Where is it? It doesn’t exist,”
Whitehouse charged, arguing that Republicans were unwilling to publicly embrace proposals that could result in benefit reductions.
Whitehouse said Democrats have legislation that would make Social Security solvent “for as far as the actuarial eye can see” without cutting benefits.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) focused on raising more revenue from higher-income Americans by increasing the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax.
Warren noted that the payroll tax currently applies only up to a certain level of earnings, meaning high-income workers pay Social Security taxes on a smaller percentage of their total income than most middle-income workers.
Sanders framed the issue in simpler terms, asking whether wealthy Americans should pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as firefighters and nurses.
But not every senator framed the debate in partisan terms.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) observed that conversations about Social Security often “immediately” become fear-mongering, with the discussion centered on taking benefits away.
“We’re actually trying to be able to get to a point where no one loses benefits,” Lankford said, noting that the goal should be long-term stabilization.
Lankford acknowledged that having a “grown-up conversation” about stabilizing Social Security’s finances and resolving the problem remains a real challenge.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also called for bipartisan action. “We’ve got to fix this and that means working together. There’s a lot of great ideas out there. If we would just make this a focus and a priority, we can get something done,” she said.
Their comments underscored a central question facing Congress: Can lawmakers move beyond the political rhetoric surrounding Social Security and find enough common ground to actually fix the program?
AARP: Keep Social Security at the Table
Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, questioned whether another special commission is the best way forward.
“The history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results,” LeaMond told the committee. She argued that Social Security’s future should be addressed directly by Congress, which has jurisdiction over the program and a long history of tackling difficult Social Security issues.
LeaMond reminded senators that Social Security remains the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. She noted that it provides more than half of household income for 43% of older American households and provides at least 90% of income for nearly 12 million Americans age 65 and older.
Social Security’s impact also extends beyond individual beneficiaries, LeaMond said. “Every dollar paid in Social Security benefits generates two dollars of economic activity, supporting 12.2 million jobs and $2 trillion in economic output each year,” she said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged AARP’s efforts to protect Social Security, including its television advertising campaign warning against benefit cuts. But Grassley urged AARP and other organizations to do more to educate the public about the looming automatic reductions.
“We’ve got to wake this entire nation up to the fact that there’s going to be 22% cuts if we don’t do something right now,” Grassley said.
Goldwein told the committee that Social Security’s financial problems can be addressed if Congress begins the process rather than continuing to delay action.
In his testimony, Goldwein described CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions initiative, which offers potential approaches for restoring Social Security’s solvency. Among the ideas discussed are changes to the taxation of benefits, expanding the payroll tax base, limiting benefits for some high earners, and encouraging longer workforce participation.
The dollar figure Goldwein cited — an average reduction of about $500 a month under a comparable benefit cut — puts the Trustees’ warning into perspective. For retirees already struggling to keep pace with rising housing, food and health care costs, losing another $500 a month would not be an abstract budget number. It could mean difficult choices between paying bills, buying groceries or filling a prescription.
Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center also called for Congress to move quickly, arguing that the most important part of Social Security reform may simply be getting the process started before continued delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve.
Rebecca D. Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told the committee that the decisions Congress makes about Social Security will rank among the most important work lawmakers undertake in generations.
Vallas cited a survey of more than 2,200 Americans conducted by NASI in partnership with AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The survey found that 85% of respondents favored preventing benefit reductions or increasing benefits, even if that would require raising taxes on some or all Americans. Only 15% preferred benefit reductions to tax increases.
Support for raising revenue rather than cutting benefits crossed party, income, education, and generational lines, Vallas said.
A Final Note…
“Social Security is too important to millions of Americans for Congress to take shortcuts or empower fast-track commissions to do their job. This is an opportunity to show that Washington can work, that it can deliver the results that the American people are demanding, and that it can achieve this goal without waiting until the very last minute to act,” says submitted testimony by Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The message from the hearing was clear: Social Security’s financial problems are real, the clock is ticking, and Congress has no shortage of policy ideas.
What remains uncertain is whether Democrats and Republicans can put aside their philosophical differences long enough to agree on a bipartisan solution.
After 43 years and 4 months since the enactment of Social Security reforms in 1983, the stakes are simply too high for millions of older Americans to wait much longer. Lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and get the work done.
Unpaid Caregiving Takes a Toll on Retirement Security
Published in RINewsToday on August 10, 2026
Unpaid family caregiving is often viewed as a labor of love. But a new national study shows that caring for a loved one can also come with a significant financial price — one that may well follow caregivers right into their retirement years.
On July 22, the Washington, D.C.-based Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that studies employee benefits, released its 42-page report, “Caregivers and Retirement: Findings From the 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey.” The report examines how unpaid caregiving affects financial security, employment, health and retirement planning.
Not surprisingly, the findings paint a very troubling picture. Caregivers are more likely than non-caregivers to report lower financial assets, debt problems, poorer health and less confidence about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement.
The report is part of a broader caregiving project being developed by EBRI and Greenwald Research. The goal is to provide employers with educational resources and strategies to help employee caregivers better prepare for retirement while managing the all-consuming demands of caring for a family member.
A Growing Retirement Security Issue
The 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey, now in its 36th year, found that nearly three in 10 Americans age 25 and older are unpaid caregivers.
For purposes of the study, caregivers were defined as people who provided unpaid care for an adult or child during the previous 12 months in a non-institutional setting and helped the care recipient with at least one activity of daily living or instrumental activity of daily living.
The findings were discussed during a July 22 EBRI and Greenwald Research webinar featuring Craig Copeland, EBRI’s director of wealth benefits research; Lisa Greenwald, CEO of Greenwald Research; Kerry Sette of Voya Financial; and Cynthia Hutchins of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Throughout the discussion, the message was quite clear: caregiving is not simply a family or health issue. It must also be viewed as a retirement security issue.
“Caregiving is often discussed as a family, health or workplace issue, but this research shows it is also an important retirement security issue,” Copeland and Greenwald said in announcing the report.
“Caregivers are doing many of the same planning activities as non-caregivers, but they are more likely to face debt, lower assets, mental health strain and lower confidence about their long-term financial future,” they noted.
The 2026 report builds on an earlier 2023 EBRI/Greenwald Research study that also examined caregivers. Comparing the two surveys, Copeland said caregivers continue to fall behind their non-caregiving counterparts.
Taking a Look at the Key Findings
Caregiving can take a toll on health. Only 36% of caregivers said their health was excellent or very good, compared with 45% of non-caregivers. Caregivers were also less likely to have household incomes of $75,000 or more — 53%, compared with 62% of non-caregivers. Women represented 61% of caregivers, compared with 47% of non-caregivers.
Caregivers have fewer financial resources to build wealth. Thirty-four percent of caregivers reported having less than $10,000 in savings and investments, compared with 25% of non-caregivers. Debt was also more likely to be a problem: 69% of caregivers said debt was a problem, compared with 57% of non-caregivers.
Caregiving can hit the family wallet. Thirty-four percent of caregiving workers and 20% of caregiving retirees said they provide financial support to the person they care for. In addition, 20% of caregiving workers and 15% of caregiving retirees said they had taken on new or additional debt as a result of caregiving.
The emotional toll is substantial. Sixty-four percent of working caregivers and 52% of caregiving retirees said caregiving had negatively affected their mental health. Among working caregivers, the financial tasks most affected were saving for emergencies (56%) and working the hours they wanted or needed to work (54%).
The financial pressures of caregiving can make it harder for people to prepare for their own futures. Caregivers in both the lower- and upper-income groups were more likely than non-caregivers with similar incomes to lack confidence that they would have enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement.
Among households earning less than $35,000, 75% of caregivers said they were not confident they would have enough money for retirement, compared with 55% of non-caregivers. Among households earning $75,000 or more, 32% of caregivers lacked confidence, compared with 23% of non-caregivers.
Caregivers were also more likely to worry about the impact of an economic recession, rising housing costs, and having to provide care for a loved one with a health condition or disability.
When Caregiving Changes Retirement Plans
For some caregivers, the demands of providing care can even change when they leave the workforce.
The survey found that caregiving retirees were more likely than non-caregiving retirees to have retired earlier than planned. Among those who retired earlier than expected, caregivers were more likely to say they did so because they had to care for a spouse or another family member.
Caregiving retirees were also more likely to describe their current retirement lifestyle as fair rather than excellent. They were more likely to say their retirement lifestyle was not what they had envisioned and that several retirement expenses were higher than expected.
Higher-income caregivers also lagged behind non-caregivers with similar incomes in completing several important retirement-planning tasks, including calculating how much they needed to save, saving for retirement, planning for emergency expenses and estimating future health care costs.
The report points to a number of ways employers can help working caregivers, including flexible scheduling, remote-work opportunities, caregiver resources, education and benefits designed to reduce some of the financial pressures associated with caregiving.
Lisa Greenwald, CEO of Greenwald Research, says caregiving creates financial, health and social-emotional pressures at different stages of life — while people are working, preparing for retirement and after they retire.
For employers, she says, recognizing these challenges can help them provide the flexibility and support caregivers need to remain productive at work while continuing to save for retirement.
Having Their Say…
Washington insider Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agrees with the report’s findings about the financial and personal pressures facing caregivers.
Unless unpaid family caregivers receive greater support through respite care or paid Home- and Community-Based Services, Adcock says, caregiving responsibilities can take a toll on their physical and emotional health.
He also points to another concern not fully captured by the EBRI survey: working-age caregivers who leave the workforce to care for a loved one can end up with lower Social Security benefits because the program’s benefit formula is based in part on a worker’s earnings history.
That is one reason Adcock supports a Social Security caregiver credit.
He urges Congress to pass the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act of 2026 (S. 4396/H.R. 8490). The legislation was introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate, with Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) introducing the House companion measure.
The legislation would allow qualifying unpaid caregivers to receive up to five years of deemed wages for purposes of calculating Social Security benefits. To qualify, a caregiver would generally have to provide at least 80 hours of care per month to a dependent child under age 12 or a chronically dependent relative.
The bills remain in committee. S. 4396 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, while H.R. 8490 was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.
The issue is particularly important here in Rhode Island, where thousands of family members provide unpaid care that helps loved ones remain in their homes.
Maureen Maigret, policy advisor with the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI), says the EBRI findings confirm what advocates have been seeing for years.
“Caregiving takes a significant physical, emotional, and financial toll on our unpaid caregivers,” she says.
Maigret notes that Rhode Island caregivers provide thousands of hours of unpaid care that can allow people to remain at home longer, potentially delaying or avoiding more costly nursing facility care.
SACRI is pushing for policies to strengthen support for caregivers, including expanding the state’s Temporary Caregiver Insurance program, adequately funding respite services, and creating a state caregiver tax credit.
Rhode Island has already taken steps to support working family caregivers through its Temporary Caregiver Insurance program. Aging advocates, however, continue to push for expanded eligibility and additional weeks of paid leave.
Taking a Close Look at AARP’s Caregiver Study
After a media briefing last year, AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) published a report, Caregiving in the U.S. 2025, that warns of a looming crisis that will impact America’s 63 million caregivers, an increase of 45% over the past decade. The report, released June 24, 2025, noted that caregivers are at a “crisis point.” Nearly half reported major financial problems, one in five reported fair or poor health, and more troubling, nearly a quarter felt completely alone.
One in five caregivers report poor health; a quarter are taking on debt due to caregiving. Half report negative financial impact due to caregiving, and one in five cannot afford basic needs like food.
EBRI’s new survey adds an important retirement-focused perspective to an ongoing national conversation about unpaid caregiving. The research shows how caregiving can affect not only today’s household decisions but a person’s long-term financial security.
And that may well be the most important takeaway from the new EBRI report.
Millions of Americans step up to the plate when a parent, spouse, child or other loved one needs help. They do it because it is what families do. But caregiving should not mean that the person providing that care has to sacrifice his or her own financial future.
Like AARP’s 2025 caregiver study, EBRI’s report examines how caregiving responsibilities are associated with retirement confidence, debt, savings, financial stress, workplace needs and long-term retirement preparation among workers and retirees.
The EBRI research, complementing AARP’s definitive caregiving research, makes it clear that unpaid caregiving carries consequences that can extend far beyond the time spent providing care. For many Americans, the price may be paid not only today, but again when they reach retirement.
A Final Note…
EBRI’s Copeland points out: “The survey results clearly show caregiving has significant impacts on both workers and retirees, not only now but in the future as well. While you may not be a caregiver currently, if you have parents or children, you are likely to be one in the future. Thus, preparing for this need, or better handling current caregiving needs, can make a huge difference in retirement preparations and current expenses. Caregiving can take a toll on all aspects of life, so anything individuals can do to plan for it or better educate themselves can foster a caregiver’s well-being, both financially and emotionally.”
.
The 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey was conducted online from January 2 through January 28, 2026, among 2,544 Americans age 25 and older. It included a general population sample of 2,052 people — 1,007 workers and 1,045 retirees — plus an oversample of 492 caregivers. The final analysis included 701 caregiving workers and 305 caregiving retirees.
The 2026 survey was supported by the American College of Financial Services, American Funds/Capital Group, Bank of America, Bright Horizons, CareScout, Edward Jones, Empower, Fidelity Investments, FINRA Foundation, Jackson National, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Mercer, Nationwide, Principal Financial Group, Protective, Prudential/PGIM, T. Rowe Price and Voya Financial.
To watch the EBRI Webinar and for a copy of the slides, go to https://www.ebri.org/publications/webinars/past-webinars
To read AARP’s 2025 Caregiver Study, go to Caregiving in the U.S. 2025 – AARP Research Report
