Current Conditions
21°F - CLEAR
County to consider change in prison health care
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Jul 30, 2008
01:57 EST
Lancaster
By P.J. REILLY, Staff

Lancaster County Commissioner Scott Martin said he figures county taxpayers will shell out about $1 million this year for a medical bill that should be covered by the federal government.

That's how much Martin expects it will cost in 2008 to provide health care to unconvicted inmates at Lancaster County Prison who were covered by federal medical insurance programs before they entered the prison.

"The way the law is now, when you walk in the door of the prison as an inmate, you lose your federal benefits," Martin said. "And that's before you've had your day in court."

By law, county taxpayers must then pick up the tab.

"Once someone is convicted and they're sentenced to time in prison, then, yes, by all means, we should pay the medical costs," Martin said. "But until someone is convicted, that person is presumed innocent, and the federal government shouldn't take away their benefits."

At their weekly meeting this morning, the commissioners are expected to pass a resolution urging Congress to pass bill H.R. 5698, also called The Restoring the Partnership for County Healthcare Costs Act, introduced in April by U.S. Reps. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla.; Rush Holt, D-N.J.; and Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

Under the proposed legislation, inmates at county prisons who receive health care benefits through Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Security Income and/or State Children's Health Insurance would not have those benefits revoked simply by being incarcerated. They would hold their benefits until convicted of crimes.

County prison Warden Vincent Guarini said the prison population Monday was 1,183. Of those inmates, Guarini said 963 are considered to be "pretrial," meaning they have not yet been convicted of any crimes.

The warden noted that the figure includes people picked up on outstanding bench warrants for parole violations who are awaiting hearings on those alleged violations.

Guarini could not state definitively how many inmates receive federal medical benefits.

"But I would say it's the vast majority," he said.

Martin noted that even if someone is arrested and housed at the prison for one day before posting bail, that person would lose his or her federal medical benefits.

And those benefits don't automatically resume when an inmate leaves the prison.

"They have to go through the whole application process again, which could take days or weeks," Guarini said. "What are they supposed to do if they're supposed to take daily medication for some condition?"

The National Association of Counties is urging every county in the nation to pass resolutions supporting H.R. 5698, Martin said.

Last year, former county commissioners Dick Shellenberger and Molly Henderson signed a resolution drafted by the association that called for an end to the revoking of federal medical benefits prior to a prison inmate being convicted of a crime.

The association collected resolutions from counties all over the country and presented them to legislators in Washington, D.C.

"This is one of the No. 1 priorities for the National Association of Counties for a long time," Martin said.

E-mail: preilly@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
TalkBack comments about this article
Comment on this article
"They have to go through the whole application process again, which could take days or weeks," Guarini said. "What are they supposed to do if they're supposed to take daily medication for some condition?"
That's just nice. What about the countless number of middle or low income adults who don't break the law? Those who cannot afford private health insurance have to just deal with the issues of daily medication or a condition. I don't see the county stepping in to take care of them, why should an inmate be provided free healthcare?

howaboutthat1
Agreed!
cityrose
I second that agreement !!!
Mikerob
[quote name='howaboutthat1' date='Jul 30 2008, 08:19 AM' post='417262

why should an inmate be provided free healthcare?
the answer is here...
*************
1976--
US Supreme Court set the STANDARDS FOR MEDICAL CARE FOR PRISONERS in "Estelle v Gamble," 1976.

(Done under conservative Burger Court).

a prisoner NOT medically treated constitutes a violation of his 8th amendment right-- "cruel and unusual punishment."
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendm...es_Constitution
*********************************

Standard for Medical Care in Prisons - Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)
Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/prisons/e...le_v_gamble.htm

PS- the decision has been modified over the years.
Daisy Lee Myers
QUOTE(howaboutthat1 @ Jul 30 2008, 08:19 AM)

That's just nice. What about the countless number of middle or low income adults who don't break the law? Those who cannot afford private health insurance have to just deal with the issues of daily medication or a condition. I don't see the county stepping in to take care of them, why should an inmate be provided free healthcare?


Fair point, but your argument should be aimed at those who price health care out of the range of many middle or low-income adults. They are the real villains.
Ten_Hut
Top Ads