Ariz. report says privatization, low funding hurt inmate care

PHOENIX — A court-appointed expert in a lawsuit challenging the quality of health care in Arizona’s prisons said understaffing, inadequate funding and privatization of health care services are significant barriers in improving care for inmates.

The report released Friday comes as the state has been accused of dragging its feet in following through on its promises made in a 2014 settlement to improve health care for inmates.

In summer 2018, then-Corrections Director Charles Ryan was found to be in civil contempt of court and the state was fined $1.4 million for noncompliance with elements of the settlement.

Earlier this year, a judge raised the possibility of throwing out the settlement and threatened a second contempt fine, which could be as high as $1.2 million, for continued noncompliance.

Expert Marc Stern, who was hired to examine the method for determining whether the state is making the promised changes, said the gap between what is spent on health care operations in 10 state-run prisons and what it should be spent is at least $74 million annually.

Stern also said that the state’s decision to privatize health care services for inmates has not served it well and that “privatization of correctional health care costs the state more than self-operation.”

He recommended that the Legislature’s push for privatization of inmate care be rescinded or overridden by the judge.

The Department of Corrections didn’t return a call seeking comment on the Stern’s conclusions.

Stern, who has served as an expert in similar inmate care lawsuits across the country, was appointed late last year amid complaints about irregularities and errors in monitoring compliance with the settlement.

The agency is appealing Stern’s appointment. In the past, a lawyer representing the state has said Stern appears to have a bias in favor of prisoners.

Corene Kendrick, an attorney representing the 34,000 inmates, said the report shows that a private company can’t provide constitutionally sound health care, in part, because of the profit motive.

“An independent expert … is saying many of the same things that the plaintiffs have been saying for years,” Kendrick said.