By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger
One of the primary issues for people in America’s vast prison system is the issue of healthcare rights and treatment. In fact, prisoners are the only Americans who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to treatment for health conditions under the 8th Amendment, specifically the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976). This ruling has been used since 1976 to ensure that inmates who are infected with HIV, and now, Hepatitis C (HCV), receive the appropriate medical treatment to which they are guaranteed under that decision. Additional arguments can be made that using a “Treatment as Prevention” (TAP) model in incarceration settings will help to stem the spread of various Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and Infection (STIs), including both HIV and HCV.
Over the past two years, HEAL Blog has covered various aspects of the HCV treatment provision for inmates in various states. Several states, including Tennessee, Nevada, Missouri, Washington state, and Pennsylvania, are currently facing lawsuits brought my inmates and advocates in state and Federal courts to force their respective Departments of Corrections to provide treatment to HCV-infected patients. Unfortunately for the states – and more specifically, their budgets – courts have seemed inclined to agree with both advocates and inmates: providing treatment and a cure for HCV is mandatory, regardless of the expense.
The primary argument used by states and their respective Departments of Corrections is that the high cost-per-patient/per-cure is simply an unreasonable expenditure, given the long-term nature of the disease (meaning the length of time from gestation to serious illness to death). The cheapest Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of the newer Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat HCV – Zepatier (Merck) – is $54,600 for twelve weeks of treatment, before any discounts, rebates, or pricing agreements struck between states and the drug manufacturers. Viekira XR (AbbVie) and Epclusa (Gilead) cost $83,319 and $74,760, respectively, which makes treating inmates with HCV incredibly expensive in one go.
Gilead and other manufacturers have argued – with only moderate success – that the short-term high cost of a cure actually ends up costing less in the long-term, when compared to both the co-infections and –morbidities (co-existing conditions) that can accompany untreated HCV infections, and the long-term cost of treating other serious chronic illnesses, which over a course of several years, account for far more money being spent to treat them. While this argument may look great on paper for the manufacturers, for government employees and elected representatives who are tasked with prepared, appropriating, and allocating funds in a budgeting process, it’s simply not a feasible one. By their way of thinking, long-term illnesses represent costs that can be spread out over time, while HCV manufacturers expect a cure, right up front, set at a budget-breaking price.
States have found a unique way of getting around the 8th Amendment statute that courts have ruled guarantees treatment: they simply fail or refuse to screen incoming and existing inmates. Many states require that inmates only be screened for HIV during the intake process, allowing prison officials to essentially feign ignorance about their prisoners’ health – if they don’t know, they don’t have to treat. Unfortunately for the state, prisoners are getting wise to this tactic, and are taking them to court to force treatment. Nevada, for example, reported 593 inmates with HCV, including just two who were receiving treatment (0.34%) in 2015 (Botkin, 2017). By March 2016, a total of only nine inmates were receiving treatment.
Given the vast budget constraints placed upon states, we at HEAL Blog understand that the cost of treating every HCV-infected inmate is a potentially financially disastrous proposal, and a non-starter in virtually every state. Attempting to get around those costs by ignoring the problem is simply an unacceptable way for state and Federal prisons to operate. Yes – treatments are expensive; but, when lives are at stake, trying to get around a Constitutional obligation to treat is simply unacceptable.
- Botkin, B. (2017, January 08). Some Nevada inmates frustrated by lack of treatment for hepatitis C. Las Vegas, NV: Las Vegas Review-Journal: Crime. Retrieved from: http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/some-nevada-inmates-frustrated-lack-treatment-hepatitis-c
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/97/case.html
Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.