Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

At David Pepper’s new blog PepTalk, he has posted a noteworthy item entitled, ”Reducing Jail Costs, Reducing Recidivism.” Apparently, Pepper learned at a conference one manner that local municipalities can save money and reduce recidivism—and in learning this, he has shared what appears a major injustice concerning the health benefits of those sitting in a jail cell.

Pepper writes:

It turns out, the federal government works very hard to save money at the expense of counties like our’s, not to mention of our most troubled citizens, by its policy of terminating Medicaid shortly after a person enters our jails. This policy has major implications:

1. It eliminates a critical benefit even before a person has been judged guilty of a crime, violating the basic principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.

2. It represents a massive cost shift from federal Medicaid to county taxpayers to pay for the medical costs of those in jail waiting for trial (if an inmate is not covered, the county is required by law to pay for the medical costs, and we pay millions per year to do so).

3. When a person leaves our jail (whether after serving a sentence, or even after being found innocent), he or she leaves without Medicaid. This has dramatically negative consequences on our effort to reduce recidivism, particularly for those with mental illnesses who rely on medical and drug care to keep them from repeating criminal behavior. Without Medicaid, they leave jail with no way to pay for their medicines. It also costs Hamilton County taxpayers because rather than Medicaid, the care of such individuals will be paid through our County indigent care levy.

Pepper goes on to discuss what he hopes to accomplish in Ohio to rectify this problem.  But personally, I am fixated on the implications in number 1, above.

How can, say, a mentally ill person who is on Medicare, who has not been found guilty of a crime, have their benefits terminated?  These are some of the most vulnerable and helpless in our society. 

Have any lawyers ever taken up this issue, by way of advocating for justice, by volunteering to represent such a victim?  Is this the kind of thing that can be taken up by a court?  Why or why not?

I applaud Pepper for exposing this issue, and for suggesting things to remedy it—but at the top of my list I’d say someone needs to call the government to task for this unjust procedure.

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.