For a long time, healthcare in correctional facilities have been a subject of dispute and frustration due to insufficient care, neglect, and organizational failures. Among the more prominent healthcare providers in this industry, Armor Correctional Health Services, is facing a string of lawsuits that allege they provide poor medical treatment to individuals held in prison or jail. This article will review the Armor Correctional Health Services lawsuit, the significance of the lawsuits, and what the larger implications are for the future of correctional health standards.
Table of Contents
History of Armor Correctional Health Services
Armor Correctional Health Services is a private company that contracts with correctional institutions to provide medical, dental, and mental health services to inmates. Armor has operated in many states. They have been recognized for cost-effectiveness; yet they have also been criticized for providing substandard healthcare. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Armor throughout the years for medical neglect, wrongful death, and violation of constitutional rights as provided by the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
The lawsuits allege that Armor placed profits above patient care allowing inmates to not receive timely treatment, error-filled prisons, understaffed prisons, and the death of inmates which should be considered preventable. Families of the now deceased inmates, along with civil rights groups have pushed for increased accountability in correctional healthcare services. They argue that privatized prison healthcare often does not comply with the rules and regulations put in place legally and ethically.
Prominent Allegations in the Lawsuits
A series of high-profile cases has placed Armor Correctional Health Services in legal jeopardy:
Inadequate Medical Care: Lawsuits claim Armor provided inadequate and/or untimely medical care that worsened conditions or caused deaths. Examples include ignoring indications of serious illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, and infections.
Understaffing and Poor Training: Inmate and former employee allegations have detailed that the facilities were understaffed, and that the medical staff were basically working two jobs or had gone days without any time off – making it impossible to deliver adequate medical care.
Wrongful Death Claims: Several lawsuits cite Armor’s negligence resulting in deaths of inmates, to include cases of inmates who died from treatable conditions that went untreated.
Violation of Civil Rights: Some lawsuits contend that Armor’s practices, by denying inmates necessary medical treatment, violate their rights under the Constitution and amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
These allegations illustrate a larger malady for correctional health systems in general, circumventing inmate care based on cost.
Legal and Financial Repercussions
Due to these various lawsuits, Armor Correctional Health Services has already faced significant (even multi-million-dollar) financial and legal repercussions, and that is not all. In some instances, lawsuits have resulted in increased regulatory oversight of their prison healthcare contracts, while in other jurisdictions, lawsuits caused people to consider ending privatization of correctional health services altogether and bring correctional health services directly under government oversight.
Further, these lawsuits have attracted attention from a number of policymakers and advocacy groups thinking about what inmate healthcare standards ought to be. Some states even have passed legislation to require more stringent oversight of private healthcare providers in prisons to avoid further negligence.
Legal and Financial Repercussions
Due to these various lawsuits, Armor Correctional Health Services has already faced significant (even multi-million-dollar) financial and legal repercussions, and that is not all. In some instances, lawsuits have resulted in increased regulatory oversight of their prison healthcare contracts, while in other jurisdictions, lawsuits caused people to consider ending privatization of correctional health services altogether and bring correctional health services directly under government oversight.
Further, these lawsuits have attracted attention from a number of policymakers and advocacy groups thinking about what inmate healthcare standards ought to be. Some states even have passed legislation to require more stringent oversight of private healthcare providers in prisons to avoid further negligence.
Conclusion
The case of Armor Correctional Health Services draws attention to significant deficiencies in correctional health care. This is especially critical because companies that extract profits from health care, including Armor, are at best unaccountable for the death and neglect they perpetuate when detainees are treated as non-humans.
The next steps are legal action, public education, and policy reform to establish acceptable standards for correctional health services. Despite having committed a crime, no one should be denied treatment in a health care setting. In society, we cannot accept a similar response to a patient being treated in an emergency room because he may be guilty of a crime. It speaks to our humanity to put preventive measures in place to prevent tragedies like these from reoccurring.
If the number of lawsuits increase, there is hope that these systemic changes will improve inmate health care and limit harm and address injustice in a correctional setting.