The Best of Jail Medicine: An Introduction to Correctional Medicine has been published!

Those of us who have practiced medicine in jails and prisons (correctional medicine) know this is a great job! We often see patients who have never had easy access to medical care. As a result, we get to diagnose and treat a larger variety of medical diseases than most medical professionals. We get to see the striking improvements our patients make due to our interventions. Since correctional medicine is largely free from traditional government/private insurance, we are freed from ICD-9 codes, diagnostic-related-groups (DRGs), and billing. We work with a disadvantaged and underserved population that appreciates our efforts and are grateful to have us. Our work is emotionally rewarding!

But it is also true that correctional medicine is different in important ways from medical practice “on the outside.” For example, we cannot fire our patients and they cannot fire us. Because of this, we must learn “verbal jiujitsu” skills to effectively communicate without animosity. We also must be scrupulously fair with our patients in a way that simply does not happen on the outside. And, of course, we must practice in a loud, hectic concrete and plexiglass building with TSA style security checks. These differences can be enough to overwhelm some medical newcomers with sensory overload.

The Best of Jail Medicine: An Introduction to Correctional Medicine consists of 47 articles from the popular Jail Medicine blog that discuss must-know aspects of practicing medicine in a jail or prison.  Each section contains several articles highlighting a different essential aspect of correctional medicine.

  1. Why Correctional Medicine is a Great Job
  2. Communication with Incarcerated Patients
  3. Unique Operations in Jails and Prisons
  4. Comfort Items: The Special Problem of Correctional Medicine
  5. Treating Withdrawal—Every Time
  6. Issues of Medical Care in Jails and Prisons
  7. Difficult Patients
  8. In My Opinion

The Best of Jail Medicine: An Introduction to Correctional Medicine is available now on Amazon.com (here)

Words Matter. “Inmate” or “Patient?”

Words matter.  What we write about our patients in our medical notes to a great degree reflects how we feel about them. Our words also mold our future relationship with our patients. One good example cited by Jayshil Patel, MD in a recent JAMA editorial (found here) is the common phrase “the patient was a poor historian.” There may be many reasons why a patient is not able to answer our questions well, such as dementia, delirium or psychosis.  In fact, the inability to present a cogent narrative usually is an important symptom of an underlying condition.  “Poor historian” does not reflect this fact.  To the contrary, “poor historian” implies that the patient is at fault for my poor documentation, not me!  “Poor historian” leaves out that there are other ways for me to get a medical history (medical records, talking to family, etc).  “Poor historian” also implies that the patient was deliberately not cooperative—even though perhaps I spent maybe two minutes attempting to get a history.

Many other common medical phrases also subtly disparage patients. Two good examples are the words “denies” and “admits” as in: “The patient denies drinking” or “the patient admits to IV heroin use.”  The implication of these words is that we are engaged in something akin to a hostile cross examination where I forced the patient to “admit” (against their will) to drinking and I really don’t believe the patient who “denies drug use.” Words guide how we think about our patients, even if on a subconscious basis.    When I use these words, I am saying that my patient and I are not on the same team.

In corrections, perhaps the single best example of a word that negatively influences our relationship with our patients is “inmate.”

Continue reading

Reader Question: Don’t Be the Decider

I work at a prison and your blog has been such a resource for our unique niche of medicine. There’s nothing like practicing “behind the walls!” . . .
Recently I’ve been incorporating more conversations about functionality and short-term/long-term goals and visits are mostly positive. However, there are the difficult patients . . . wanting to bargain “well if you’re not going to do anything, can I have an extra mat?” Or “Can I have a bottom floor restriction?” “Transfer me then!” “Give me insoles.” …and other requests like this. How do you recommend I come to an agreement with these patients that are difficult to have conversations with? . . . If by the end of the appointment we do not come to some sort of agreement, they end up right back in sick call with the same complaint. Then the cycle repeats. KR

Continue reading

How to Write an ATP (Alternative Treatment Plan)

Many of us in supervisory positions in correctional medicine have Utilization Management (UM) duties. One common duty is to review requests from primary care practitioners for patient care procedures like a referral or, say, an MRI. We must then decide whether to approve the request or write an Alternative Treatment Plan (ATP). This process is loosely based on a similar practice done in HMOs in free world medicine, but there are important differences. In an HMO, the evaluator is deciding whether the HMO will pay for the procedure. If the requested procedure does not meet HMO criteria, the evaluator will deny the request. The procedure can still be done, but the patient and her physician will have to find an alternative method of paying for it. Also, the HMO evaluator does not offer opinions on whether the procedure is appropriate nor does she offer suggestions as to what could or should be done instead.

Many of us in supervisory positions in correctional medicine have Utilization Management (UM) duties. One common duty is to review requests from primary care practitioners for patient care procedures like a referral or, say, an MRI. We must then decide whether to approve the request or write an Alternative Treatment Plan (ATP). This process is loosely based on a similar practice done in HMOs in free world medicine, but there are important differences. In an HMO, the evaluator is deciding whether the HMO will pay for the procedure. If the requested procedure does not meet HMO criteria, the evaluator will deny the request. The procedure can still be done, but the patient and her physician will have to find an alternative method of paying for it. Also, the HMO evaluator does not offer opinions on whether the procedure is appropriate nor does she offer suggestions as to what could or should be done instead.

Correctional Medicine UM is different. Those of us doing these evaluations are not being asked about payment; we are being asked for permission to do the procedure at all. We cannot simply deny the request like an HMO can. If we do not think the procedure should be done, then we must say what should be done instead: The Alternative Treatment Plan.

When done poorly, the ATP can irritate the primary care practitioner and even create an adversarial relationship between the practitioner at the site and the UM evaluator. When done well, the ATP is a written conversation between two equal colleagues and the ATP process can actually improve patient care.

Doing it wrong

Like any other bit of writing, it is important at the outset to define who your audience is. The ATP should be written with three potential readers in mind. The first is the site practitioner who made the initial request. A bad ATP will leave the PCP feeling underappreciated, threatened and disrespected: “I don’t trust you and you are stupid.” A good ATP will leave the PCP feeling like you are on the same team and that you have their back: “You’re doing great! Let me help you.”

The second potential reader of the ATP is The Adversary, like a plaintiff’s lawyer or an advocacy group. A bad ATP will indicate that you are denying the patient reasonable and necessary medical services. A good ATP will show that nothing was denied and will not imply that any medical service is off limits.

ATPs are also read by nurses, who have to transcribe and record the ATP in the official record. A good ATP will make their life easier. A bad ATP can result in many hours of needless, morale crushing busy work.

In my experience, it does not take much more time to write a good ATP instead of a crappy one.  Most UM evaluators, however, have never been taught how to write and ATP.  Here is how I write mine:

Step one: Restate what is being requested.

The first sentence of the ATP should briefly summarize the case and re-state what is being requested.

  • 56 yo male s/p colonoscopy done for guaiac positive stool. Request is for a routine post procedure FU with the gastroenterologist.
  • 63 yo male with reported gross hematuria.  Request is for CT of the abdomen.

Step two. Support your ATP.

The next section of the ATP contains the evidence that supports your ATP. This evidence can be pertinent positives, like x-rays, labs, previous visits. This evidence can also be pertinent negatives, like incomplete exams or missing data. Finally, this paragraph can also include pertinent research that supports your ATP, such as a quote from Uptodate, RubiconMD or InterQual.

  • The colonoscopy was negative except for a single sigmoid polyp. The pathology report on the sigmoid polyp is not attached to the report.
  • There is little clinical information accompanying the request.  I do not know if the patient has other medical problems, findings on physical exam, what medications he is one or what labs have been done.  Review of published treatment algorithms for the diagnostic work up of hematuria (Essential Evidence, Uptodate) show that CT is not the first diagnostic procedure that should be considered in most cases of hematuria.

Step 3. The ATP should defer the request; not deny it.

It is important to never (or rarely) use the word “denied.” Instead, you should restate what was requested and then say it is “deferred “pending whatever you want done instead, such as “Pending receipt of missing information,” “Pending complete evaluation of the patient at the site,” or “Pending case evaluation in a case review conference”

  • Routine post-procedure FU with GI is deferred, pending complete evaluation of the patient and colonoscopy findings at the site.
  • Abdominal CT is deferred pending complete evaluation of the patient at the scene.

Step four. Tell the Primary Care Practitioner what you want them to do instead.

The next sentence contains instructions to the site practitioner.  This is the “ATP” and should be labelled as such.  I also always date the ATP.

  • 3/11/2019 ATP: The site practitioner should obtain the pathology report on the sigmoid polyps and call me to discuss the case. The timing of follow colonoscopy will depend on the biopsy results.
  • 3/11/2019 ATP: The primary care practitioner should do a complete physical examination, appropriate labs and then discuss the case with me as to the next appropriate diagnostic procedure (ultrasound, cystography, etc).

Step five. State that whatever was requested can be reconsidered later.

I always add this last sentence as well, to reaffirm that I am not denying any medical care. “The request from the first paragraph” can be considered thereafter, if clinically appropriate or anytime if medically necessary.

  • Off-site GI visit can be considered thereafter, as clinically indicated–or at any time if appropriate.
  • CT can be considered thereafter, if clinically appropriate, or anytime if medically necessary.

Step six: Contact the PCP to let her know that her request was ATP’d.

I don’t think that PCPs should find out from a UM nurse that their request was ATP’d. They will feel much better about the process if you contact them. This also opens a method of communicating about the case if they have more questions. This can be accomplished with a simple email:

  • Hi Dr. X! Before we send this patient off-site to see the gastroenterologist, we need the biopsy report. If the adenoma is low risk, you can deliver the good news to the patient and tell him when his next colonoscopy will be scheduled. You’ll be seeing him in chronic care clinic in the meantime.
  • Hi Dr. Y!  I am attaching an algorithm for work up of hematuria.  As you can see, there are several things that should be done before we consider a CT.  Will you please call me to discuss this case?

Putting it all together, here are the full ATPs:

  • 56 yo male s/p colonoscopy done for guaiac positive stool. Request is for a routine post procedure FU with the gastroenterologist. The colonoscopy was negative except for a single sigmoid polyp. The pathology report on the sigmoid polyp is not attached to the report. 3/11/2019 ATP: Routine post-procedure FU with GI is deferred, pending complete evaluation of the patient and colonoscopy findings at the site. The site practitioner should obtain the pathology report on the sigmoid polyps and call me to discuss the case. The timing of follow colonoscopy will depend on the biopsy results. Off-site GI visit can be considered thereafter, as clinically indicated–or at any time if appropriate. Email to PCP: Hi Dr. X! Before we send this patient off-site to see the gastroenterologist, we need the biopsy report. If the adenoma is low risk, you can deliver the good news to the patient and tell him when his next colonoscopy will be scheduled. You’ll be seeing him in chronic care clinic in the meantime.
  • 63 yo male with reported gross hematuria.  Request is for CT of the abdomen. There is little clinical information accompanying the request.  I do not know if the patient has other medical problems, findings on physical exam, what medications he is one or what labs have been done.  Review of published treatment algorithms for the diagnostic work up of hematuria (Essential Evidence, Uptodate) show that CT is not the first diagnostic procedure that should be considered in almost all cases of hematuria. 3/11/2019 ATP: Abdominal CT is deferred pending complete evaluation of the patient at the scene.  The primary care practitioner should do a complete physical examination, appropriate labs and then discuss the case with me as to the next appropriate diagnostic procedure (ultrasound, cystography, etc).  CT can be considered thereafter, if clinically appropriate, or anytime if medically necessary. Email to PCP: Hi Dr. Y!  I am attaching an algorithm for work up of hematuria.  As you can see, there are several things that should be done before we consider a CT.  Will you please call me to discuss this case?

Two more examples (minus email):

53 yo s/p treatment for tongue cancer in remission. Request is for routine FU with ENT at six months from last visit.
The patient has finished all of his radiation sessions. ENT note from 7/17 states that the patient is in remission and that the six-month FU visit is “prn.” The consult request notes no new symptoms.
3/11/2019 ATP: ENT consultation deferred. Per last visit with ENT, further visits are to be “prn.” The site PCP should evaluate the patient at 6 months from the last visit and again at one year from the last visit. Off-site visit with ENT can be considered thereafter, as needed–or anytime if clinically necessary.

62 yo who had a liver ultrasound as part of Hepatitis C staging. The ultrasound showed a hypoechogenic polyp or cyst at the neck of the gall bladder. The radiologist says “A CT may be of value.” There is no report that the patient is symptomatic. I submitted the case to a RubiconMD radiologist, who thinks this is an incidental finding and repeat ultrasound in 6 months is a better methodology to follow this incidental finding.
3/11/2019 ATP: Abdominal CT is deferred. Per RubiconMD radiologist’s recommendation, the site PCP should order a follow up ultrasound at ~6 months. CT may be considered thereafter as clinically appropriate (or anytime if necessary).

As always, what I have written here is my opinion based on my training, experience and research.  I could be wrong! If you disagree, please say why in comments.

A previous version of this article was published in CorrDocs, the Journal of the American College of Correctional Physicians

Medical plan

Handling the Manipulation of Confrontation

You are seeing a newly booked patient in your jail medical clinic. He states he has been in jails before, many times, and is always given a second mattress and an extra pillow because he had surgery on his back many years ago. You note that the patient has not seen a doctor on the outside for many years, that the patient walks and moves normally and that he has a normal neurological examination. You tell the patient that medical does not give out passes for extra mattresses or pillows. The patient angrily erupts in a blaze of obscenities and threatens a lawsuit.

Manipulation happens when a patient wants something that they should not have (like an extra mattress and pillow) and will not accept “NO” for an answer. In my last JailMedicine post, I outlined the strategies patients employ in an attempt to entice or force practitioners to change a No to a Yes. This patient is employing the “threatening” strategy.

Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is the technique of deflecting and defusing manipulative confrontations. Notice that I did not use the word “defeating.” That is because the first and most important rule of Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is to remember that this is not a war or a contest! There should be no “battle of wills” between you and your patient. There is no winner or loser. Instead, you and your patient are having a conversation. The whole goal of Verbal Jiu-Jitsu is to avoid any kind of verbal battle. Continue reading

Correctional Medicine is Different: We Can’t Fire Our Patients—and They Can’t Fire Us!

This post is the third in a series exploring how Correctional Medicine is different than medicine practiced outside of jails and prisons.  The previous two differences were The Principle of Fairness and All Clinical Encounters are Discussed Back in the Dorms.

There is a controversy in pediatrics that I have been following recently. Some pediatricians have been dismissing children from their practice if their parents will not allow them to be vaccinated. This practice has been criticized as punishing innocent children for the actions of their parents but the pediatricians defend it by saying they are just trying to protect their other patients from being exposed to pertussis, measles and other transmittable diseases in the waiting room.

unknown-1This story illustrates an extreme example of something that we all know: that the practice of “firing” patients is commonplace in outside medicine. Many of my jail patients have been dismissed from medical practices, some more than once! Patients can be fired for variety of offenses. Some violate the contracts of their pain clinics. Some are dismissed for simply not following the doctor’s advice—like to get their children vaccinated. Many are no longer welcome when they cannot pay their bills or have lost insurance coverage. (One orthopedist that I know routinely sends a dismissal letter to his patients on their 65th birthday since he refuses to participate in Medicare). Finally, patients can be fired for just being too difficult to deal with. One jail patient in particular I remember screamed drunkenly at his doctor’s secretary to the point that she called the police. He received his official dismissal letter while he was in jail.

Well! Things are different in Correctional Medicine! We can’t fire our patients. Our patients remain our patients no matter what. It doesn’t matter if they violate the terms of a pain contract by, say, diverting medications. It doesn’t matter if they refuse to follow our advice. It doesn’t matter if they are difficult to deal with. Continue reading

The M-Word–Malingering

I went to the always excellent NCCHC spring convention in Nashville last month. One of the many outstanding presentations was done by frequent lecturer Deana Johnson. Deana talked about the risks of using the word “malingering.” Her basic message was to be very careful about saying that an inmate is malingering—in fact, perhaps we should never use that word.

I was surprised by the degree of spirited disagreement from several members of the audience. They pointed out that “malingering” has a specific medical meaning and sometimes—even often—it is an appropriate medical diagnosis. They pointed out that malingering is listed as an official diagnosis in DSM-5 and that outside medical agencies, like mental hospitals, use the term malingering. If we can’t say that an inmate who is clearly faking is malingering, what are we supposed to say?

Today in Jail Medicine, I am going to tackle the term malingering. It turns out that there is indeed a correct and proper way to use the term malingering in correctional medical practice—but it is tricky and most often (in my experience) done incorrectly, with resultant bad consequences.

There are three important reasons for this. First, most people have an inaccurate idea of what malingering actually means in a medical sense and so use the term inaccurately. Second, the use of the term “malingering” also carries with it an emotional definition that MUST be taken into account when it is used in a medical document. Finally, use of the term “malingering” has important consequences for patient relations, patient behavior and time management.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that “malingering” is a term that should very rarely be used in correctional medicine. There are better and more precise ways to convey medical information. But if you do absolutely want to use the term “malingering,” you need to know how to use the term correctly. Continue reading

Pseudoseizures—the Right Approach

I recently had to mediate a complaint from a jail deputy about a jail nurse. The jail deputy had called the nurse in to evaluate an inmate who was having seizures. The nurse said that they were pseudoseizures. The deputy was upset because “You’re accusing this inmate of faking. These weren’t faked. I was there and saw them.” He also was upset that “nothing was done” meaning that the patient was not sent to the ER and was not given any anti-seizure medications (the patient had requested Xanax to help control her seizures).

This little vignette has all of the elements of a good seizure/pseudoseizure case: a diagnostic dilemma (are these real seizures or not?), the potential for medical mismanagement if you get the diagnosis wrong, the possibility that the inmate is manipulating the situation, and, above all, a LOT of emotion. Everybody was upset here: The deputy was upset with the nurse for doing nothing about the patient’s medical problem. The nurse was disgusted and irritated with the patient for “faking.” The patient was upset—and filed a grievance– that she had not been given her “seizure medication” (Xanax).

The issue of seizures/pseudoseizures is a common occurrence in correctional institutions. Little has been written about this phenomenon. So today I’m going to begin to tackle the topic of pseudoseizures. It is a big enough subject that I am going to break it up into discrete segments, each of which (I hope) will have at least one pearl of wisdom to help guide the correctional care provider through this potential mine field.  We need to start by defining what I mean by a “real” epileptic seizure and what I mean when I say “pseudoseizure.”

Today’s Take Home Message: The word “pseudoseizure” does NOT equal “fake seizure.” Assuming this is a medical mistake and will get you into trouble. Continue reading

Verbal Aikido: A Guest Column by Dr. Bill Wright

Dr. Bill Wright

Dr. Bill Wright

Today on JailMedicine, I am happy to present a guest post by Dr. Bill Wright.  As you may remember, Dr. Wright is the author of Maximum Insecurity: A Doctor in the Supermax, which I reviewed here and which you can purchase here.

VERBAL AIKIDO

Correctional medicine attracts more than its share of argumentative and demanding patients. We all feel the tightening in our stomachs when finding certain names on the clinic schedule, anticipating the disputes that are almost certain to follow. It doesn’t need to be that way. Continue reading

Should Inmates Bring Their Own Prescriptions to the Jail?

In response to my last post, one reader wrote to tell me that the jail where she works does not accept medications brought in by inmates or their families. They consider this a security risk.  All medications are ordered and supplied by the jail.  She asks if I will comment on this. Before I do, I need to define a couple of terms that come up over and over in any discussion of newly booked inmates’ medications.

Verification

UnknownThe first term is “Verification.”  Verification refers to the process of verifying what medications an inmate is currently prescribed and is taking.  There are three ways to verify medications.  The first is to call the prescribing doctor’s office to get a list of currently prescribed medications.  The second is to call the dispensing pharmacy to get a list of all prescriptions they have recently filled for the patient.  Finally, the inmate could bring the medications they are taking into the jail with them in the original pill bottles.  On the label is everything we need to know—who prescribed the medication, when it was filled, dosages–everything.

One problem with calling the doctor’s office to verify medications is that the patient often is not taking all of the prescribed medications.  If I remember right, studies show that only around half of all prescriptions are filled.  So you will get a list of prescribed medications, but that may not be what the patient is actually taking.  Another problem with calling the doctor’s office for a current medication list is that doctor’s offices are often closed.  If a patient is booked Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend, you may not be able to get a current medication list until Tuesday.  Finally, many inmates get medications from multiple prescribers.  For example, the patient may have a family physician, but a psychiatrist prescribes their mental health medications and they also use a pain specialist.  And get prescriptions also from ERs and “Doc-in-the-Box” clinics.

Calling the pharmacy may get you more information than calling the doctor’s office.  After all, the pharmacy will only tell you about prescriptions that were filled and can also tell you when the prescription was filled.  If you do call a pharmacy to verify meds, don’t just ask for an “active medication list!”  The pharmacy considers any prescription that they would fill for the patient active, and refills are generally good for one year.  So if a patient may not have taken a certain medication for many, many months, but the pharmacy still considers it “active.”

And like doctors’ offices, pharmacies may be closed when you want to call them.  And inmates often use more than one pharmacy.  Some inmates use mail order pharmacies that are hard to get any information out of.  Or an inmate may not use a pharmacy at all—for example, their medications might be supplied by a psychosocial rehab group.  Finally, it is not uncommon for an inmate not to remember what pharmacy they use, at all!

Authorization

The second term to define is “Authorization.”  I discussed medication authorization in my last post.  Authorization refers to the process of reviewing and inmate’s (verified) medication list and deciding which of those medications will be dispensed at the jail—and which will not.

All incoming inmates taking medications should have their prescription list verified and authorized.  These two processes take quite a lot of nursing time and effort at most jails.

So now we return to the original question.  Which is better, to allow inmates to bring their outside medications into the jail with them or not to allow this and instead verify their medication list and re-prescribe the approved medications ourselves?  The answer is that there is no “right” answer.  Each system has its advantages and disadvantages.  Which you choose to use at your jail depends on several factors, such as the size of your jail, your staffing levels and the sophistication and efficiency of your pharmacy system.

With that in mind, let’s compare each system as to its relative advantages and disadvantages with regard to some of our goals in jail.20130619

Continuity of Care

We want medical care to continue seamlessly from the outside to the inside of the jail.  We want there to be no lapses in ongoing medical care for newly booked inmates.  This means that, ideally, there will be no missed doses of important medications.  This is, of course, easiest to accomplish if inmates brings their medications to the jail in the original containers.  This makes verification, authorization and dispensing to the inmate a simple process.

Contrast this with what usually happens if the inmate does not bring the meds with them.  The current medication list must be verified with phone calls to the doctor’s office and pharmacy.  Even if this goes well (no offices are closed), the medications then must be ordered from the jail’s pharmacy.  Best-case scenario:  the process takes 24 hours.  More commonly, it takes 48-72 hours and the patient has been without medications for 2-3 days.

If the inmate does not bring meds into the jail with them, the only solution for timely administration of most medications is to have an extensive collection of “stock” meds on hand, so that most medications can be continued quickly from stock.  In order to be able to fill the majority of outside medication prescriptions, there must be a lot of stock meds plus protocols for automatic “therapeutic substitution”  (mentioned here).  https://www.jailmedicine.com/the-f-word-formulary/ That is a pretty sophisticated system.

However, even then, no “stock” med collection is going to contain all of the various HIV meds, say.  Or cancer chemotherapy agents.  And these are precisely the medications that we most want to continue without missing a dose!

Clearly, from a “continuity of care” perspective, it is better to encourage inmates to bring in their own, outside medications.

Advantage:  Allowing outside prescriptions.

Information Gathering

There is no question that having the original pill bottles sometimes gives you medically important information.  As one example, consider the patient who takes combination lisinopril/HCTZ for blood pressure.  He brings in a bottle that was filled 45 days ago for a one month supply (30 pills).  There are 29 left in the bottle.  His blood pressure is 128/78.  Would you continue the prescription?  I probably would not.  I would, instead, monitor his blood pressure to see if he really needed the medication.

Or say instead, his blood pressure is 180/120.  If I know that he has not been taking his hypertension medication, I would simply restart it in the jail.  But if he had been taking it faithfully, I might consider adding or changing the prescription.

I could give many more examples of similar situation.  Knowing that the patient has (or has not) been taking their prescribed meds is often very helpful clinically.

Advantage: Allowing meds to be brought in to the jail.

Time Management

The issue here is how long it takes nursing staff to verify and approve a newly booked inmate’s medications.  If the inmate brought meds to the jail in the original pill bottles, verification consists of noting the information on the prescription label, verifying that the medications in the bottle match the label and counting them.  Authorization is easy as a phone call to the provider.  And then the medications can be immediately dispensed to the inmate.

If the inmate did not bring meds to the jail, verification will take much more time.  It consists of interviewing the inmate (Who is your doctor?  Which pharmacy do you use?), then calling the doctor’s office, the pharmacy or both (hopefully, there is only one of each!).  If there is a discrepancy between what the inmate says they take and what the pharmacy says they filled, a second interview with the inmate may be required.  Then, after the approval process, the medications must be ordered from the jail pharmacy, delivered, processed and then, finally, they can be dispensed.

Advantage:  Allow meds to be brought in.

Cost Considerations

Consider the case of the inmate who is only going to be in jail for 30 days.  He is willing to supply his own medications for the month long stay.  Among other things, he takes Abilify, which costs approximately $25.00 a pill.  If your jail will not allow him to bring in his own Abilify, then you must either supply it at a cost of many hundreds of dollars for that medication alone, or substitute something else.  Even if patients are on inexpensive medications, these med costs and fill fees add up.

In addition, if your jail charges a fee to fill prescriptions, inmates will complain, because often they get their outside medications for “free” (meaning Medicaid, most often).  I have even had inmates go so far as to call this extortion and refuse to take jail prescriptions because they do not want to pay any money for meds that they are willing to supply “for free.”

Advantage:  Allowing meds to be brought in at booking.

Medico-Legal Considerations

The main medico-legal risk in these situations is disruption of the continuity of care, in this case, patients missing doses of important medications.  If (Heaven forbid!) something bad happens after the patient has missed a dose of medication—like the patient has a heart attack or commits suicide—it will inevitably be blamed on the missed meds by the patient, his family and their attorney.  I have seen this many, many times.

Advantage:  allowing meds to be brought in.

Security Considerations

This is the one aspect of the problem where there is a decided advantage not to allow outside medications into the facility.  Anytime you allow stuff from the outside to come into the jail, there is a potential for a security breech.

One possibility is that inmates might adulterate capsules by pulling them apart, pouring out the real medication and then filling them with cocaine, heroin or whatever.  However, this is not as easy to do as it sounds.  Adulterated capsules don’t look right and, in my experience, are quickly suspected and discarded.  Besides, if you want to smuggle illicit substances into a jail, there are easier methods than trying to pour powder into tiny capsules.

A more legitimate security concern is what to do with medications that were brought in to the jail but then were rejected during the authorization phase and so never dispensed to the patient.  Non-controlled substances can be placed in the patients’ property, but things can go wrong.  For example, the meds, somehow, are not there when the inmate is discharged from the jail six months later.  Where did they go?  The inmate, of course, may demand compensation for his lost property.  Maybe there should be an investigation?

Controlled substances are even worse, especially DEA schedule 2 drugs like methadone and amphetamines.  Like all schedule 2 controlled substances, these properly should be kept under double-lock (i.e., a locked box in a locked room) and should be counted every day with two people witnessing and signing off.  That is a lot of work should the patient stay in jail for a significant amount of time.   And when the inmate is released, you have this dilemma:  should you return these addictive controlled substances to him? What if he overdoses?  What is your risk exposure?

Advantage: not allowing out-of-jail medications in the facility.

In the end, which system you eventually put into place for incoming inmate medications depends on how important the security angle is to you and how well you can create and use a stock medication system.  To some degree, this depends on jail size.  The smaller the jail, the more important continuity of outside care becomes because the small jail’s medical staff may not be there all the time.  Large jails are better able to develop sophisticated stock medication systems where most incoming prescriptions can be quickly and easily filled from stock.  But even big jails should have exceptions in place for expensive specialty medicines, like chemotherapy agents, immune-modulators and HIV meds.

Does your jail allow incoming inmates to bring their medications to booking?  Do you like the system your jail uses?  Please comment!