Does this make sense:Prisons to reduce hepatitis treatment??

Nurses Activism

Published

posted on thu, jul. 24, 2003

prisons to reduce hepatitis treatment

fewer pa. inmates will be eligible, due to budget issues. officials say the candidates will be better targeted.

by mark fazlollah

inquirer staff writer

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/6369952.htm

faced with looming state budget problems, pennsylvania prisons this fall will begin reducing by about 75 percent the number of inmates being treated for the potentially deadly hepatitis c virus.

pennsylvania now has 8,030 state inmates infected with hepatitis c and is treating 550, said fred maue, chief of medical services for the department of corrections. he said those 550 would get their medicines, which cost $16,000 per patient for a 48-week course of treatment.

but beginning in september, he said, prisons will apply stricter rules for treating infected inmates. he estimated that 130 a year would receive medicines and that that number eventually might be cut to fewer than 100. he said the number of infected inmates is likely to remain constant - about 23 percent of the prison population.

"we were facing medical cutbacks. we were faced with having to live with a limited budget," he said. "we felt that we needed to prioritize our budget."

maue said much of the treatment would be focused on prisoners with a highly curable form of hepatitis c - about 15 percent of those infected.

he stressed that the reduction in treatment was justified because the state was doing better at targeting patients who could benefit from the medicine.

thomas shaw-stiffel, a specialist at pittsburgh's center for liver diseases, said that approach might get more bang for the buck.

"it's to the patients' benefit to be more focused," said shaw-stiffel, who worked with the university of rochester's hospital when it was treating new york inmates with hepatitis c. "on the surface, [the reduction] may look ominous, but it may be beneficial."

the new guidelines are in line with national prison standards.

more than three million americans are infected with hepatitis c, with a huge portion rotating through the correctional system. an estimated one million infected inmates leave jails and prisons each year, the u.s. centers for disease control and prevention says.

nationally, hepatitis c is the leading reason for liver transplants. it has become one of the leading causes of death among pennsylvania inmates.

the reduction in treatment comes at a time when the medications are more successful in effectively curing the disease - prompting some criticism that the state is going in the wrong direction.

"it's disappointing," said lawyer angus love, director of the pennsylvania institutional law project, when told of the state's new rules. "it's not surprising, given the budgetary constraints."

despite the reductions in treatment, pennsylvania will still be providing more care than many states. new jersey, for example, is treating 33 inmates - a dramatic change from last year, when it was treating one. officials do not know how many inmates are infected because new jersey prisons do not conduct widespread testing.

under govs. tom ridge and mark schweiker, pennsylvania developed one of the nation's most aggressive treatment programs. in the past, the state's secretary of corrections had boasted that his department was saving lives of inmates. the secretary, jeffrey a. beard, also said that treating the disease in prisons made inmates less likely to spread it after their release.

maue said his department last year was "over our budget," spending about $8.8 million for treating hepatitis c.

he estimated that for this year, "top dollar would be $6 million," with treatment costs even lower next year.

maue said prisons would require that inmates have at least 18 months remaining on their sentences before consideration for medication. in the past, inmates were required to have a year left on their sentences.

inmates also will be required to undergo liver biopsies before being considered for treatment.

Specializes in Corrections, Psych, Med-Surg.

"Our "captive audience" is dependent upon the state to take care of bodily needs."

Which does NOT include elective surgeries, experimental treatments, unconventional treatments, and procedures that are outside accepted "standards of care."

And might I add that these people are "captive" because they willingly chose to thumb their noses at the rules and laws which the rest of us in society accept (or at least are not caught breaking). They were not forced to make those choices.

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

what sjoe said.

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Originally posted by geekgolightly

That policy is murder, IMHO.

Non-compliance should be dealt with on an individual basis for those using that as an excuse for this policy.

Our "captive audience" is dependent upon the state to take care of bodily needs. Doing time for a crime does not mean they should be dealt a death sentence. leave that for capital crimes, if that.

Do you think these inmates ectively sought treatment when they were out on the street? Unfortunately, in my experience with them, they were not. Do you think they will get released and continue their course of treatment? Nope- they usually don't, unless they are Veterans and have VA benefits, and even then, it's a big maybe. They are not being denied treatment- they are being told that if they want it, then they will have to pay for it (therefore, they'll have to work while they're incarcerated)- it's called responsibility.

A good majority of inmates that have Hepatitis are IV drug abusers- what do you think their priority is when they get out?

And if we release them back into the public, where Hep. Tx may be too expensive for them, are we still responsible for them, and continuing to give them a death sentence?

The "excuses" for this policy have been listed above by Sjoe, and if you have any experience with healthcare in the prison system, you know why this policy is in place.

Hep+ inmates are monitored closely. Their enzymes are checked regularly, and great care is given not to prescribe meds for them that are hard on their livers. And, I have yet to see someone die in prison of liver failure related to Hep.

Specializes in MICU, neuro, orthotrauma.
Originally posted by sjoe

"Our "captive audience" is dependent upon the state to take care of bodily needs."

Which does NOT include elective surgeries, experimental treatments, unconventional treatments, and procedures that are outside accepted "standards of care."

And might I add that these people are "captive" because they willingly chose to thumb their noses at the rules and laws which the rest of us in society accept (or at least are not caught breaking). They were not forced to make those choices.

I love the empathy shared at this board. It's so refreshing.

Specializes in MICU, neuro, orthotrauma.
Originally posted by lgflamini

Do you think these inmates ectively sought treatment when they were out on the street?

not only is that none of my business, but it is none of the state's business.

Unfortunately, in my experience with them, they were not. Do you think they will get released and continue their course of treatment?

again, not only is it none of my business (unless they WANT help) it is not the state's business (again, unless the patient/parolee wants the help)

They are not being denied treatment- they are being told that if they want it, then they will have to pay for it (therefore, they'll have to work while they're incarcerated)- it's called responsibility.

i must have missed this part. it is perfectly reasonable to expect an inmate to spend a portion of his earnings in prison on things other than contraband. i like the responsibility aspect of this. putting some of the burden on them teaches them that you have to earn things. good plan. i hope its availible to anyone who wishes to spend their money in that way.

A good majority of inmates that have Hepatitis are IV drug abusers- what do you think their priority is when they get out?

again with the assumptions and the busybody notions. it is none of my business and none of the states what their "priorpities" are when they get out. if they fail to act in a lawful manner they should be thrown in again, but i certainly would never hold someone accountable and guilty for crimes they have not yet committed, NO MATTER WHAT THE STATS.

And if we release them back into the public, where Hep. Tx may be too expensive for them, are we still responsible for them, and continuing to give them a death sentence?

this is a differnt issue entirely. we are responsible for those whom we hold captive for fair treatment, offering them access to medical care rahter than shortening or ending the lives of those who are held against their will. when they are of their own free will it then becomes the old debate of randian objectivism vs. socialism. i obviously, as i am a bleeding heart on my sleeve type of gal, choose for more social programs.

The "excuses" for this policy have been listed above by Sjoe, and if you have any experience with healthcare in the prison system, you know why this policy is in place.

ive studied the prison system formally and classically. ive read foucault, ive read davis, ive read law enforcement manuals and studied philsophy and the sociology of deviance. im so woefully inadequate at assessing the ethical and moral responsibilities of those who are holding our captive audience because i "haven't done the time?" please. try and come up with something more plausible.

Hep+ inmates are monitored closely. Their enzymes are checked regularly, and great care is given not to prescribe meds for them that are hard on their livers. And, I have yet to see someone die in prison of liver failure related to Hep.

that is AWESOME. im glad to hear it.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.

For my own personal opinion:

As I suspect that the treatment involves antivirals, and viruses tend to develop resistance rapidly when antivirals are not used in a compliant manner, it is of national and of international concern when prescribing such drugs to a non-compliant client. By doing so, we may hasten the development of a resistant/more virulent strain. And many HIV specialists have limited the use of some antivirals in some patients d/t non-compliance issues. We are also seeing MDs being required to provide "proof" that their patients need a newer form of ABX before it may be used, as these newer drugs are more expensive and to prevent over prescribing/development of resistance. So there is precedent for limitation of services.

Also, money for meds is not infinite. In many places, healthcare is rationed, so unfortunately it is "our business" that those dollars are spent well and most effectively. And unfortunately, many of those with HepC that are incarcerated have already proven that they do not make very good life choices.

And where did the author of the article come up with the word "cure" in reference to a virus? While we can control viruses, and limit their effects on the body and ability to spread, do we now have an "official" cure for a virus? Or is this a regimen that controls or puts the disease into remission. When it comes out of remission, are we obligated to retreat them? So we have an endless cycle of money out. If this indeed cures them, it makes a better financial deal than if it is a "remission" situation.

Also, if this is not a accepted treatment, will inmates be able to sue over problems and are they clearly aware of the longterm issues involved.

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Originally posted by caroladybelle

For my own personal opinion:

As I suspect that the treatment involves antivirals, and viruses tend to develop resistance rapidly when antivirals are not used in a compliant manner, it is of national and of international concern when prescribing such drugs to a non-compliant client. By doing so, we may hasten the development of a resistant/more virulent strain. And many HIV specialists have limited the use of some antivirals in some patients d/t non-compliance issues. We are also seeing MDs being required to provide "proof" that their patients need a newer form of ABX before it may be used, as these newer drugs are more expensive and to prevent over prescribing/development of resistance. So there is precedent for limitation of services.

Thank you Caroladybelle- that was what I was so ineptly trying to convey. That the noncompliance, and non-continuity of care after release actually makes the problem worse.
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Originally posted by geekgolightly

again, not only is it none of my business (unless they WANT help) it is not the state's business (again, unless the patient/parolee wants the help)
I totally agree with this. I'm not saying it's a moral judgement issue, but an issue of scruples when treating (not curing) a virus such as this.

i must have missed this part. it is perfectly reasonable to expect an inmate to spend a portion of his earnings in prison on things other than contraband. i like the responsibility aspect of this. putting some of the burden on them teaches them that you have to earn things. good plan. i hope its availible to anyone who wishes to spend their money in that way.[/b]

Where I worked, inmates were never denied treatment of any kind. The fact is, if the State's Board of Prisons won't approve coverage of the treatment, the inmate is given an option of paying for it themselves.

again with the assumptions and the busybody notions. it is none of my business and none of the states what their "priorpities" are when they get out. if they fail to act in a lawful manner they should be thrown in again, but i certainly would never hold someone accountable and guilty for crimes they have not yet committed, NO MATTER WHAT THE STATS. [/b]
OK, I didn't convey what I was trying to get across very well at all. See Caroladybelle's post- she did a much better job at it.

ive studied the prison system formally and classically. ive read foucault, ive read davis, ive read law enforcement manuals and studied philsophy and the sociology of deviance. im so woefully inadequate at assessing the ethical and moral responsibilities of those who are holding our captive audience because i "haven't done the time?" please. try and come up with something more plausible. [/b]
I wasn't pointing my comment at you, or saying you had no idea what you were talking about...lol. It was more directed at the article, which left out some very important facts. The most important one being that inmates are not denied treatment, but are told they will have to pay for some of them (which were listed by Sjoe), and for good reason.
Specializes in MICU, neuro, orthotrauma.

oh ok. when you quoted me, i thought you were directing your comments at me.

i think getting inmates to participate in their own health care and being financially responsible for their own health care is an EXCELLENT idea. i love it. i think that many of our captive audience are unaware of the cause and effect of being responsible. it works if you work it kind of thing. some people think it only works, if you cheat it. know what i mean?

Specializes in MICU, neuro, orthotrauma.

p.s. your sig is fantastic!

Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms...Audrey Hepburn

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.

Hey, Geek: I PM'd you.

+ Add a Comment