This is a response to the document by Hughes et al. in this issue that offers a critique of the status of differential response (DR). We find the document to be helpful in intent, but do not find that it reflects scientifically sound methods, and contains many mischaracterizations of the status, impetus, research, and evaluation of DR to date. We attempt to define DR, provide a national overview, and in doing so clarify some inaccuracies portrayed by the authors on the implementation of DR. Second, we provide some observations about the critique of the research, our sense of what is coming, and what is needed in the way of research and evaluation going forward.