Blog Archives

Prison’s Deadliest Inmate, Hepatitis C, Escaping


In our continuing series on Hepatitic C we offer this story from NBC and the Associated Press  3/14/2007

Public-health workers warn of looming epidemic of ‘silent killer’

Marcio Jose Sanchez  /  AP

VACAVILLE, Calif.  — The most dangerous thing coming out of prison these days may be something most convicts don’t even know they have: hepatitis C.

Nobody knows how many inmates have the disease; by some estimates, around 40 percent of the 2.2 million in jail and prison are infected, compared with just 2 percent of the general population.

Eventually, when they are released, medical experts predict they will be a crushing burden on the health care system, perhaps killing as many people as AIDS in years to come. At the same time, they will be carriers, spreading the disease.

Hepatitis C can be treated, but many prisons do not test for it. Among the reasons: Budgets are tight, and treatment is expensive. So prison officials close their eyes to the gathering emergency and pass it along to the outside world.

“Right now there’s a golden opportunity to bring solutions to this problem before it hits,” said Dr. John Ward, director of viral hepatitis at the National Center for HIV/AIDS at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Hepatitis C is already the most common disease of its sort in the United States — a chronic, life-threatening, blood-borne infection. It is most commonly linked to infected needles used for drugs, though prison tattoos and body piercing with non-sterile equipment are also risky.

‘Silent killer’
What makes this virus particularly insidious is that as many as half of the people who have hepatitis C don’t even know they have it. The “silent killer,” already considered epidemic by the World Health Organization, often remains dormant for decades.

Some of the infected are lucky: One in five people who get hepatitis C will clear it out of their system naturally. But without treatment, one in four will suffer liver failure or develop liver cancer. Last year liver cancer was the only one of the top 10 fatal cancers in this country to increase, in large part because of hepatitis C.

More than $1 billion is already spent each year on this country on hepatitis C, and those costs are expected to soar unless prevention and treatment are expanded.

Without those changes, researchers project that liver-related deaths will triple from around 13,000 in 2000 to 39,000 by 2030. It’s also estimated that 375,000 Americans with hepatitis C will develop cirrhosis by the year 2015.

Anita Taylor, 48, is already there, in end-stage liver disease. Taylor speaks very slowly and moves with care. She often finds that she can’t say the words she wants to — they just won’t come out. Her body hurts most of the time. Her nose bleeds a lot.

‘Doctor gave me a death sentence’
A mother of two and former heroin addict, Taylor said she learned she had hepatitis C when she was jailed in Nevada in 1991 for being under the influence of drugs.

“They tested me and told me I had hepatitis C. They didn’t tell me there was a treatment and a cure,” she said. “And I didn’t know to ask.”

Taylor’s experience is not unusual.

“The doctor gave me a death sentence, recalls Leslie Czirr, a 36-year-old parolee. “He told me, ’There’s no cure for this and you will die from it unless you are hit by a truck first,”’

Czirr learned she had hepatitis C during a prenatal examination in 1996, at a time when she wasn’t in prison. Czirr has been arrested 10 times for drug possession and served almost eight years in prison on various drug possession and dealing charges.

She has started to suffer exhaustion, brain fog and aches. She recently enrolled in a county program to be treated — treatment, she said, she was denied at California’s Norco State Prison.

“I asked and asked, but they barely want to give you a Motrin,” she said. “I really want to get well, not just for myself, but so I’m not putting anyone else at risk.”

Limited studies indicate that fewer than 10 percent of prisoners who have contracted hepatitis C are treated. The reason vary. Medical staff have other priorities, and not all are well-informed about the disease. Prisoners with short sentences are often excluded because they won’t be able to complete treatment, and drug addicts who are inclined to return to risky behavior are often turned away because it is assumed they will simply reinfect themselves.

No funding for treatment
Usually, though, it comes down to money. Prison officials say that even if they wanted to provide the treatment, it is extremely expensive — about $9,500 per patient per year — and no federal funds have been earmarked to pay for it.

“It’s a hard sell to convince taxpayers why additional resources should be spent on the health care of the incarcerated when there are a lot of people who aren’t incarcerated who don’t have adequate health care,” said Dr. Joseph Bick, chief medical officer at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville.

Many of the inmates in Vacaville’s hospice unit — reserved for those given six months or less to live — are dying from hepatitis C-related ailments. Bick said half of the prison’s 3,200 inmates have a history of having been infected with hepatitis C, and at any given time about 40 of those men are receiving the intensive drug treatment to cure it.

“I’m pretty sure this is how I got it,” said Anthony Harris, an inmate at Vacaville. He rubbed his forearm hard, as if trying to remove the prison tattoo bearing his children’s names.

Harris, 51, is a former barber serving a life sentence for second-degree murder. In 2003, a doctor at another prison told him he had Hepatitis C; he researched the disease in the prison library and has sought treatment ever since.

“They gave me shots for Hep A and B, got rid of them. I’d like to get rid of the C too,” he said. “I’m entitled to that. But some docs will give you the treatment and others won’t. I keep making appointments. I keep asking.”

The course of treatment can take a year, and involves taking pills twice a day and weekly injections. Side effects are like those associated with chemotherapy — nausea, exhaustion, depression, debilitating aches and pains — and the cure only works about half the time.

But Bick said the high cost of treating prisoners for hepatitis C is a bargain compared to the bill that would come due if these cases are left untreated. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for us to have an impact on the larger health of the community,” he said.

Dr. Lynn Taylor, an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University’s medical school, agrees that prison is “perhaps one of the best setting for treatment of high-risk individuals.”

‘Window of opportunity’ for public-health efforts
“Prison can be a window of opportunity to reduce the reservoir of infection,” she said.

But there are no federal rules about testing and treating hepatitis C. Federal guidelines, issued by the CDC in 2003, said correctional facilities should “become part of prevention and control efforts in the broader community.” But they don’t recommend screening for all inmates.

Instead, the CDC urged medical staff to ask new inmates about their risk factors, and only those prisoners who seem likely to be exposed should undergo screening, which costs $5 to $10.

The CDC guidelines fell short, said Dr. Josiah Rich, a professor at Brown who directs the university’s Center for Prisoner and Human Rights. Rich’s studies confirm that convicted criminals are almost always willing to be tested for hepatitis C, but will often lie to prison authorities about their past drug use.

“We already know that more than one in three people coming through corrections has Hep C, so by definition everyone coming in is high risk. It’s absurd that they’re not testing everyone,” he said.

Rich concedes that testing every inmate will “jack up costs” for prisons.

“An individual is going to say, ’Hey, you tested me, you said I was positive, and now I want to be treated, and I’m going to sue you if I don’t get treated,”’ he said.

Lawsuits on the rise
Lawsuits are, indeed, on the rise.

The first significant case came in 1999, when officials at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in La Grange, Ky., refused to allow inmate Michael Paulley access to free hepatitis C treatment. Paulley, who was serving a 25-year sentence for rape and burglary, sued and won.

But the treatment came late and he died in 2004, the year he would have been eligible for parole. The litigation prompted broader testing and treatment in Kentucky, but Paulley’s physician, Dr. Bennet Cecil, a Louisville, Ky.-based hepatitis C specialist, said prisoners still die “all the time” for untreated hepatitis C.

“I think it’s immoral if a country, a state a society is going to incarcerate somebody and then deny them necessary medical care. I think that’s an outrage,” he said.

Prisons in at least a dozen states — Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma and Virginia — are being sued over failure to treat hepatitis C.

But it’s tough going, said Oregon civil rights attorney Michelle Burroughs. Although she’s won a settlement that mandated testing for at risk inmates and treatment for those who are eligible, five of the 10 inmates she’s representing in a class-action lawsuit have died while the litigation proceeds.

5-year wait
“It’s appalling, horrendous, horrifying. Prisoners wait five years just to be evaluated,” she said.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., recently reintroduced legislation that would mandate prison testing and treatment of hepatitis C. Earlier similar proposals in recent years have failed.

“The plain fact is that prisoners do not stay in prison. With more than 90 percent of incarcerated persons returning to their communities, it is clear that when a prisoner is infected, we are all affected,” Lee said.

In North Dakota, it didn’t take legislation, court orders or new regulations to prompt medical services director Kathleen Bachmeier to begin screening every inmate for hepatitis C after a methamphetamine epidemic tripled her state’s prison population in about a decade. As the intravenous drug addicts arrived, so did the hepatitis C.

“It became obvious to me that these people are going to cost the state a lot of money if we don’t do something about it,” she said.

North Dakota now treats anyone who meets certain medical criteria, whose sentence is long enough to complete the course of treatment and who is willing to try to quit using drugs.

“We look at this as a huge public health initiative,” she said.

Bob Aronson of Bob’s Newheart is a 2007 heart transplant recipient, the founder of Facebook’s nearly 2,500 member Organ Transplant Initiative and the author of most of these donation/transplantation blogs.

You may comment in the space provided or email your thoughts to me at bob@baronson.org. And – please spread the word about the immediate need for more organ donors. There is nothing you can do that is of greater importance. If you convince one person to be an organ and tissue donor you may save or positively affect over 60 lives. Some of those lives may be people you know and love.

Please view our video “Thank You From the Bottom of my Donor’s heart” on http://www.organti.org This video was produced to promote organ donation so it is free and no permission is needed for its use.

If you want to spread the word personally about organ donation, we have another PowerPoint slide show for your use free and without permission. Just go to http://www.organti.org and click on “Life Pass It On” on the left side of the screen and then just follow the directions. This is NOT a stand-alone show; it needs a presenter but is professionally produced and factually sound. If you decide to use the show I will send you a free copy of my e-book, “How to Get a Standing “O” that will help you with presentation skills. Just write to bob@baronson.org and usually you will get a copy the same day.

Also…there is more information on this blog site about other donation/transplantation issues. Additionally we would love to have you join our Facebook group, Organ Transplant Initiative The more members we get the greater our clout with decision makers.

Advertisements

UNOS CEO: Study Could Redefine “Medically Suitable” Donors


On August 11, I sent a letter to Walter Graham, CEO of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) asking what UNOS was doing or was going to do to increase the supply of organs. My letter noted that the number of transplants performed each year has plateaued at about 28,000 while the number of people on the list continues to grow.  Today there are 114,899 people waiting and so far this year there have been 11,469 transplants from 5,677 donors.   As you can see, the gap continues to widen.  With only four months left this year we may fall far short of the 28,000 number.

Below you will first find my letter to Mr. Graham, followed by his response.  You can decide if he responded to my concerns and most importantly, your concerns about how our national donation/transplantation system is managed.

August 11,2012

Walter Graham

Chief Executive Officer

United Network For Organ Sharing

Richmond, Virginia

Dear Mr. Graham:

You might remember me as a Minneapolis, Minnesota based communications consultant that worked with UNOS in the 90’s.  During that period I was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy and subsequently had a heart transplant at the Mayo clinic in Jacksonville, Florida in August of 2007.

I am writing not as a former consultant but rather as a very grateful heart transplant recipient, founder of Facebook’s nearly 2500 member Organ Transplant Initiative (OTI), author of over 120 blogs on donation/transplantation issues (www.bobsnewheart.wordpress.com)  where we have 100,000 readers and writer/producer of three videos on organ donation. I am a very active advocate for organ donation and have been for many years.

I’ll get right to the point.  I have a growing concern about the Inability of the altruistic system to meet the demands for organ transplants and UNOS’ reluctance to make or even recommend significant changes to the system.

I am quite aware of all the ethical and other arguments forwarded by UNOS for rejecting changes that would include presumed consent and donor incentives/compensation among others.  I am puzzled as to how UNOS can find these suggestions unethical or unworkable but has made no statement about the ethics of allowing people to die due to the failure of the altruistic system to generate enough transplantable organs.  How can it be ethical to allow an inadequate system to prevail?

Having been on that list I have first-hand experience with the depression that accompanies it, knowing that the government contractor that is funded with my tax dollars is doing little beyond promoting altruism to significantly increase the number of available organs.  It is discouraging and depressing for those on the list to continually hear that every option other than altruism is either unethical or unworkable.

I am hoping that you can offer some hope that I can pass on to members and other interested parties that the gap not only is closing but will close and soon.  Please offer some explanation other than renewed efforts at increasing altruism of just what UNOS is doing and will do to help those who are languishing on an ever growing list of people who need transplants.  Please prove me wrong.  I would be most grateful to see clear, compelling evidence that the altruistic system can work and is working.

It is almost 30 years since the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) was implemented..  I think that is plenty of time to determine if a system works.  Unless you can prove otherwise, It seems clear that with 114,000 people listed and only about 28,000 transplants done every year despite intense and noble efforts at increasing donation rates, altruism alone cannot meet the demand – ever.  .

Please respond as soon as possible.  I plan to publish my letter to you and your response side by side.

Thank you for your consideration and time

Bob Aronson

Return letter from Walter Graham

Received on August 22, 2012

Dear Bob:

Thank you for your letter, and yes, we remember your valuable contributions to us as a consultant in the 1990s.  We are glad you continue to do well with your transplant and engage the public in this vital cause.

Your concern regarding the shortage between available donors and the needs of waiting candidates is widely shared.  Our ultimate goal and fondest hope is to be able to provide transplants for all candidates in need, to prevent deaths and needless suffering while waiting.

As you may recall from your work with us, the primary mandate of UNOS as operator of the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) is to allocate organs from deceased donors equitably among transplant candidates.  Other significant roles, as specified in federal law and regulation, including maintaining a clinical database on all donors, candidates and recipients; monitoring compliance with OPTN policies; and investigating donation- or transplant-related issues that may pose a risk to the health and safety of transplant patients, living donors or the public.

Promoting organ donation is interwoven among all of our responsibilities, and transplantation depends entirely on the public’s willingness to donate.  That said, managing the organ donation system is not a fundamental mandate that federal law or regulation has assigned to us.  Our essential responsibility is to make sure that available organs are used in the most responsible and effective way possible.

State and federal law governs the process of donation in the United States.  Any change to the current voluntary nature of donation, whether that would involve preferred consent, financial incentives, preferred status or other means, would involve a public initiative to amend the law.  UNOS, as a corporation, has declared its support of careful study of potential incentives, financial or non-financial, that would encourage donation while respecting individuals’ freedom of choice.  Such study may involve legislative efforts to suspend the law to allow examination of the results.  As a federal contractor for the OPTN, UNOS cannot develop policies not supported by the law or expend limited resources lobbying for legislative changes beyond the OPTN’s mandate.

One of the fundamental questions UNOS is seeking to answer has to do with the potential number of persons who could qualify for deceased organ recovery.  Our Center for Transplant System Excellence is conducting a Deceased Donor Potential Study. This study will identify the total number of medical cases in which persons could be deceased organ donors regardless of issues of consent. The results of this study will provide a better understanding of what is possible. The merits of whether a system based on altruism is the best approach could then be understood in the context of what is possible. It may well be that the number of medically suitable cases as currently defined is not adequate in any circumstance.

Many people are convinced that the delicate nature of donation may be adversely affected by negative connotations or perceptions generated by controversy over debates about changes to the underlying legal system such as presumed consent. That being the case, it is prudent to pursue the DDP Study to learn what the potential might be before considering whether to advocate for a fundamental change.

Among key strategic goals for the OPTN are increasing the number of transplants performed and optimizing post-transplant survival.  Even with the current supply of donated organs, we can increase utilization of organs and enhance survival by better matching available organs with candidates who are the best long-term match.  In promoting organ donation, we actively support efforts such as those of Donate Life America, which has recently announced more than 100 million Americans have formally registered their wish to donate organs and tissues and has set an ambitious goal of 20 million new donor commitments this year.

We all agree a higher rate of donation is essential to save lives and relieve suffering of men, women and children anxiously awaiting an organ transplant.  UNOS and the OPTN are dedicated to helping save and enhance lives through organ allocation.  Whether society may be ready to adopt a new model for the process of organ donation is an important discussion that would involve society as a whole and active support of state and national lawmakers.

Walter Graham

CEO

Bob Aronson of Bob’s Newheart is a 2007 heart transplant recipient, the founder of Facebook’s nearly 2,500 member Organ Transplant Initiative and the author of most of these donation/transplantation blogs.

You may comment in the space provided or email your thoughts to me at bob@baronson.org. And – please spread the word about the immediate need for more organ donors. There is nothing you can do that is of greater importance. If you convince one person to be an organ and tissue donor you may save or positively affect over 60 lives. Some of those lives may be people you know and love.

Please view our video “Thank You From the Bottom of my Donor’s heart” on http://www.organti.org This video was produced to promote organ donation so it is free and no permission is needed for its use.

If you want to spread the word personally about organ donation, we have another PowerPoint slide show for your use free and without permission. Just go to http://www.organti.org and click on “Life Pass It On” on the left side of the screen and then just follow the directions. This is NOT a stand-alone show, it needs a presenter but is professionally produced and factually sound. If you decide to use the show I will send you a free copy of my e-book, “How to Get a Standing “O” that will help you with presentation skills. Just write to bob@baronson.org and usually you will get a copy the same day.

Also…there is more information on this blog site about other donation/transplantation issues. Additionally we would love to have you join our Facebook group, Organ Transplant Initiative The more members we get the greater our clout with decision makers.

%d bloggers like this: