Overview of Armor Correctional Health Services (ACHS)
Arguably, once a major jail and prison healthcare provider in the United States, Armor Correctional Health Services (ACHS). The company was started in 2004 with a promise of providing affordable medical, dental, and mental health care to incarcerated people. On the surface, its mission was noble–to make sure that the prisoners got the attention they warranted and the tax-payers were not charged excessive funds. Nevertheless, litigation, negligence suits, and growing public scrutiny soon became a name associated with the company.
The role of ACHS in correctional facilities
ACHS was primarily involved in contracting with state and county jails and prisons to give medical treatment to prisoners. This encompassed both regular checkups and emergency care, treatment of chronic illnesses, and mental health care. Correctional facilities have always faced the problem of scarce resources but the outsourcing of medical services by privately owned companies was expected to help. However, regrettably, what was supposed to be a measure to save money, soon became a scandal of profit-based carelessness.
History and background of the company
The history of ACHS provides a clear image of how private medical companies work within the four prison walls. The company grew very fast in various states and got multi-million-dollar contracts. However, when their footprint expanded, so did the complaints raised by inmates, families, advocacy groups and watchdog organisations. At some point, the accumulating number of lawsuits that were filed showed that there was a systematic nature to the problems within the system, starting with negligent medical care and all the way to denying care.
In brief, even though ACHS claimed to be a healthcare organization dedicated to the care of a vulnerable population, the lawsuits convey a different message- that of avoidable deaths, medical conditions that went unaddressed, and malfunctioning systems that left the legal system and the entire population in shock.
What Is the Armor Correctional Health Services Lawsuit?
The litigation against ACHS did not occur in one day. They were the culmination of years of accumulating complaints and tragic accidents that revealed the severe weaknesses in the way the company provided care. The central arguments of the scandal were the allegations of negligence, malpractice among the medical workers, and in certain instances, intentional apathy to the suffering of prisoners.
Repeated failure to provide timely treatment was one of the largest red flags. Prisoners used to wait weeks or months to have basic medical check-ups. These delays could be fatal to people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart conditions or asthma. Allegations that the company did not train its employees appropriately also resulted in risky errors and negligence in medical assessment.
Major cases intensified the examination. Several deaths of inmates in various states were indicators of negligence in the system and not individual errors. Families would also bring wrongful death claims, claiming that ACHS was putting cost reduction before good care. Other lawsuits included some truly shocking information, including denying inmates the medication they needed, neglecting them in medical emergencies, or even dismissing them as pretending about their symptoms.
Soon followed Federal and state investigations. Watchdog organizations and oversight boards started digging into the contracts and practices of ACHS and found that most of its problems were much bigger than individual grievances. Understaffing, shortage of qualified doctors and pressurizing the staff to cut the expenses, at the expense of treatment were regularly mentioned in reports.
After all, the cause of the lawsuits was a complex of systematic negligence, the profit motive, and an absence of government regulation. ACHS was not being accused of mishandling a handful of cases–it was being accused of fostering a culture in which inmate healthcare was systematically undermined in the pursuit of profit.
The Major Lawsuits against Armor Correctional Health Services.
The cases against ACHS were in more than one state, but some of them were notable in their scope and seriousness. The legal battle against the company became a battleground in Florida, Wisconsin and many other states.
In Florida, ACHS was confronted with many lawsuits involving wrongful death as families accused the company of neglecting the urgent medical conditions of inmates. In one instance, a young prisoner reportedly had frequent complaints of extreme pain but was ruled out as a faker. Later, he succumbed to untreated appendicitis and this caused outrage costing the company a multimillion-dollar settlement. The Department of Corrections in Florida ended up cutting off relations with ACHS following numerous scandals.
Another battlefield of the law was Wisconsin. Several lawsuits also describe grotesque scenes of neglect such as inmates dying due to conditions that could be treated and mentally ill prisoners not receiving any treatment until they self-mutilated. According to one lawsuit, the ACHS employees did not give insulin to diabetic prisoners, which caused avoidable deaths. Such cases not only damaged the image of the company, but also highlighted on the national level the risks associated with outsourcing prison healthcare.
Lawsuits were also filed against ACHS in other states such as New York and Minnesota. Where other law suits were resolved behind closed doors, others became the talk of the day due to the outrageous information that they revealed about the business. Taken together, these cases created a grim image of systematic neglect, as opposed to accidental mistakes.
Every lawsuit put pressure on state governments to review their contracts with ACHS. The legal expenses, citizen anger, and mistrust eventually led the company to a financial meltdown.
Claims of Medical negligence and malpractice.
Medical negligence and malpractice were among the most common claims in almost all the lawsuits against ACHS. Such charges did not concern small errors–they frequently concerned cases concerning life and death in which prisoners were deprived of even the most elementary comfort.
Absence of timely treatment has been one of the most widespread allegations. Prisoners who showed clear signs of serious cases would take weeks before being seen by a physician. In a few tragic incidents, people lost their lives due to waiting to receive treatment that would have saved their lives with little difficulty. Indeed, it was reported that a number of ACHS facilities were highly understaffed with few medical professionals to serve thousands of inmates.
Another repetitive theme was mental health care failures. A large proportion of the prison population consists of mentally ill persons, yet ACHS was charged with the lack of proper psychiatric care. In other cases, there were lawsuits that described situations where prisoners were not provided with essential drugs that could treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression. Others exposed suicidal inmates who were not attended to and caused death through suicide that could have been averted.
The mismanagement of medication also was put to the test. Families reported situations when inmates were prescribed the incorrect medications, refused to receive the required refills, and even left without medication over long periods of time. In the case of chronic illnesses like epilepsy or heart disease, such negligence could in many cases lead to severe complications–or worse, death.
To a great extent, these accusations played out an unsafe conflict of interest: the company was being compensated to reduce expenses, whereas reducing expenses within the healthcare industry typically includes reducing corners. The suits revealed that the pursuit of profitability by ACHS was directly the cause of negligence and malpractice that placed vulnerable inmates at serious risks.
Effects on Prisoners and their families.
The impact of what ACHS allegedly did wreaked havoc outside the prison buildings. The inmates experienced physical pain, emotional agony, and avoidable deaths that ruined their families in most situations.
To the prisoners, this meant living in constant pain, untreated illnesses, and the fear of being overlooked in an emergency situation. Think about having a serious toothache that turns into a life-threatening infection due to the temporary unavailability of the prison dentist, or having untreated asthma and working in a dust-prone area with low air quality. These were not one-time occurrences but day-to-day experiences of most people incarcerated under the care of ACHS.
There was an emotional and psychological burden on families too. Countless people received a heart-wrenching phone call telling them their cherished ones had passed due to natural causes only for them to later find out through lawsuits or investigations that their death had something to do with negligence. Parents lost kids, and children lost their parents and spouses were left with questions which could not be answered. The lawsuits on wrongful death were a means by which families would get their justice back yet nothing can really replace the death of a loved one.
The trauma was also transferred to survivors. Individuals who previously left prison with long term health effects due to untreated illnesses. Others were scarred psychologically forever when they were deprived of care in times of weakness. Those families who had seen their loved ones in suffering tended to become vocal reformers of prison healthcare, and joined the advocacy groups to ensure accountability.
Briefly, the effects of the alleged negligence of ACHS were extensive and far-reaching. It was not only a matter of lawsuits but of lives lost, family ruined and faith in the justice system further damaged by a healthcare system that appeared to prioritize profit over human life.
Government Response and Oversight.
Government agencies at both the state and federal level had to respond to the wave of lawsuits and public outrage against Armor Correctional Health Services (ACHS). What started off as single studies, later evolved into comprehensive studies of the correctional healthcare systems in the nation.
On the state level, the performance of ACHS was investigated internally at many Departments of Corrections. One of the most affected states in the lawsuits, Florida, ended its contracts with ACHS due to frequent cases of inadequate treatment of inmates and accusations of wrongful deaths. Other states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota were also checking their agreements, and some of them decided to sever all the links. These actions were meaningful as they indicated that governments started to see the risks of not closely monitoring the outsourcing of inmate healthcare.
Federal intervention was an extra level of scrutiny. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then took an interest in systemic problems in prison healthcare, especially when constitutional rights were claimed to have been violated. Inmates have the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, which courts have understood to mean that they have access to proper medical care. When the alleged negligence by ACHS was so serious that it was the constitutional violation, DOJ started to intervene with lawsuits, settlement agreements, and consent decrees.
Policy changes followed. Other states were even more demanding on healthcare contractors and included disclosure of staffing numbers, reporting of inmate deaths, and external audit of medical services. Other people started turning away entirely at the use of private providers, and instead thought the prisons needed a state-run healthcare system to increase accountability.
Though these government reactions were a step in the right direction, critics contended that too many reforms were too late. To the majority of families, it was too late before the damage was done. Nevertheless, ACHS lawsuits also led to a national discussion of prison healthcare management that posed significant questions about who ought to care for one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
Defense and Public Statements at Armor Correctional Health Services.
As with most corporations that incurred legal and reputational costs, ACHS was not silent. The company released several public statements justifying its practices and trying to change the narrative in favor of negligence and the larger systemic problems.
ACHS used to claim that correctional healthcare is one of the most difficult fields of medicine. The company pointed out that jails and prisons are home to persons with high chronic illness, substance use disorders and mental illness rates. They argued that notwithstanding these obstacles, their employees delivered care of at least or higher standards than those in the industry. Most of their public messages have focused on the idea that part of the bad news they received was due to wider prison circumstances, including overcrowding, insufficient funding, or state policy-not necessarily due to medical negligence.
When defending against lawsuits, ACHS often refused to admit culpability when the death of an inmate occurred claiming that a significant number of cases involved people with preexisting conditions or circumstances outside their control. Their lawyers would frequently say that employees had done their best under the conditions of prisons.
Simultaneously, ACHS tried to prove that things had improved. They made announcements to train personnel more, install improved reporting mechanisms, and update medical records. Critics, however, believed that these promises were too late and were more a question of damage control than actual reform.
These defenses were not well received by the people. The company was accused by advocacy groups and families of victims of spreading the blame instead of taking responsibility. To most people, the words of ACHS just served to reinforce the notion that profit-making healthcare organizations could not provide inmates with humane and proper treatment.
Finally, despite the efforts of ACHS to protect their image, the number of suits along with heartbreaking stories outnumbered their PR activities. To most, the words of the company were empty against the cruel truth of suffering inmates.
Monetary Impact on Armor Correctional Health Services.
The claims that were brought against ACHS not only did damage to its reputation, but also had a devastating financial impact on the company that ended in its downfall.
Millions in wrongful death and negligence settlements have been paid out by ACHS over the years. There were legal costs, judicial expenses, and, in most instances, payouts to families of victims in the multimillion-dollar range. These settlements consumed the company resources and were also contributing to a further tightening of the belt in order to continue with profitable operations.
Another big blow was the loss of contracts. States and counties which previously used ACHS as a provider of inmate healthcare are severing their ties and opting to either outsource or to revert to in-house healthcare services. One of the largest contracts ACHS had with Florida ended its contract following numerous scandals, which left the company without a major source of revenue. Other states became apprehensive about renewing or signing new contracts when the lawsuits were publicized and ACHS was left without a prospect.
The financial pressure was too high by 2019. ACHS was declared bankrupt claiming excessive legal expenses and loss of business. The bankruptcy filing did not only highlight the extent of the lawsuits but it also left many families wondering whether they would ever receive compensation on their claims.
The collapse of the business was a warning to the privatised correctional health care sector. It showed how even a big provider could be crippled economically by systemic negligence when combined with legal liability.
Ultimately, the financial meltdown of ACHS was a perfect storm: citizen outcry, investigative journalism, legal action, and increasing the realization that the provision of healthcare to inmates cannot and should not be solely influenced by profit margins.
The ways the Lawsuits transformed the Prison Healthcare Industry.
The ripple effect of the ACHS lawsuits was felt way beyond a single company. It also rippled through the whole correctional healthcare sector and transformed how states and counties contracted with private providers.
Among the most immediate changes was the greater examination of prison healthcare providers. Governments started to require more transparency, such as information on inmate mortality, staffing and healthcare outcomes. Contracts that had previously focused on saving costs have started incorporating tougher accountability controls to avoid the type of negligence that had been brought against ACHS.
Other private healthcare providers also emerged because of the lawsuits. Other companies, such as Corizon Health and Wellpath, came in to replace ACHS, but also were sued and criticized by the public. The pressure to change was mounting on the industry as a whole, with advocacy groups and the media continually bringing to attention cases of neglect of inmates all over the nation.
The fact that there was increased demand to replace the privatized prison healthcare was perhaps the most significant change. Other states started looking into models of state healthcare due to the belief that the profit motive would be eliminated, which would decrease the temptation to cut corners. Others suggested hybrid models that federated government regulation with private service but with a far more rigid policing.
The ACHS lawsuits served as a wake up call. Their revelation of the risk of privatization of prison healthcare beyond its financial benefits and the welfare of inmates ignited a national debate on the morality of privatization of healthcare in prison. Although issues continue to plague the industry, the history behind the collapse of ACHS is seen as a pivot point in the reform push.
Healthcare Ethics of private prisons.
At the center of the ACHS scandal is an even more ethical problem: Is healthcare in prisons a business industry at all?
Concerns have been raised that privatizing inmate healthcare poses a conflict of interest. When the main objective of a company is making profits, cost-cutting is always tempting. Cost reduction in the healthcare sector usually implies reduction of services, such as fewer doctors, postponed treatment and access to medications that a patient needs. In the case of inmates, which are completely reliant on the prison institution to take care of them, such cost-saving activities are fatal.
The concept of privatized correctional healthcare has been attacked by human rights bodies as a denial of fundamental human dignity. Human rights norms on a broader international scale highlight that the level of healthcare provided to incarcerated persons must be the same as that of the community. However, with the presence of such companies as ACHS, the conditions of many prisoners were much lower than these norms.
Another ethical question that relates to the larger concern of mass incarceration is brought up. The US has more prisoners than any other nation and this huge prison economy presents a profitable business opportunity to corporations. Opponents complain that privatizing inmate healthcare is not only unethical to medical practitioners, but also contributes to a culture in which human anguish is a commodity.
Conversely, proponents of prison healthcare privatization believe that resources can be saved by outsourcing efficiency and specialization as well as managing expenses that governments may fail to do without outsourcing. Nevertheless, the ACHS legal cases illustrate the ease with which this model can miscarry once profit-making takes precedence over patient care.
The moral issues that the ACHS lawsuits brought about are ultimately not just a single company-wide issue, but a challenge to the very idea of privatized prison healthcare, and how such an institution can ever put the welfare of its inmates a top priority.
Comparison of ACHS to Other Prison Healthcare Providers.
Armor Correctional Health Services (ACHS) may have gained national publicity due to its lawsuits and eventual collapse, but it was not the only company to fall under scrutiny because of its failures in correctional healthcare. Indeed, the comparison between ACHS and other providers shows that there is a concerning trend throughout the sector.
Corizon Health is one of the largest competitors and has been the target of numerous lawsuits that resemble the accusations against ACHS. Corizon has been accused by families and advocacy groups of refusing to treat, ignoring medical emergencies, and letting preventable deaths occur. So many lawsuits were filed against Corizon that in certain states lawmakers had contemplated a ban on future contracting with the company. Similar to ACHS, Corizon found it difficult to survive in the face of litigation, and finally reshaped and repackaged its operations in a bid to forget its stained reputation.
Another big player, Wellpath has not been left out as it has also received criticism over the same issues. Although the organization positions itself as a reform-oriented provider, there have been inmate neglect, treatment delays, and inadequate mental health care cases sued against Wellpath. Investigative journalists have provided reports that Wellpath, just like ACHS and Corizon, has been put under pressure to reduce expenses and maximize profit- often at the cost of inmate health.
These similarities demonstrate that ACHS was not isolated but a symptom of an even larger industry issue. Inmates are likely to be exposed to the same dangers when profit making firms take control of the prison healthcare. The problem of staffing shortages, delayed diagnoses, inaccessibility to specialists, and failed mental health care is observed by a variety of providers.
One question that may be relevant to the comparison is: Could other providers be the same fate as ACHS, should it fail under lawsuits? Opponents think that, unless systemic reforms are provided, the neglect, litigation, and financial meltdown will keep on reoccurring. That is, ACHS might be the first large-scale victim of social and legal pressure, but it will not be the only one unless the system per se is altered.
Rights of the Inmates in the USA.
The most important part of the lawsuits against ACHS is the fact that, despite being behind the bars, inmates do not have no rights. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that people are not subjected to inhuman and unusual punishment. Courts have always determined that refusing proper medical services to prisoners is within this category, in other words, prisons and their medical providers are legally bound to attend to the medical needs of the inmates.
These rights have been influenced by a number of landmark cases. In Estelle v. The Supreme Court ruled in Gamble (1976) deliberate insensitivity to severe medical care of inmates is cruel and unusual punishment. The case provided the basis of many lawsuits against prison healthcare providers, including ACHS. Subsequent court rulings further affirmed that inmates are entitled to not only emergency treatment, but also treatment of chronic diseases and mental health disorders.
Inmate families also can take legal action whereby they feel that their inmates have been neglected or even wrongly killed because of insufficient care. Grieving families wanted justice and accountability, which explains why many of the lawsuits were initiated against ACHS. These are important legal avenues since inmates themselves do not have access to or the means of bringing lawsuits when in prison.
Sadly enough, on paper, the law gives all these rights but in reality, things are very different. Most prisoners complain that they are neglected, sidelined, or undressed even when there is evident constitutional protection. The anguish was in the disjuncture between the law and life as it experiences it.
Eventually, the lawsuits become a strong reminder that constitutional rights apply to all citizens, even prisoners. Healthcare neglect is not only a moral concern–it is also a constitutional violation, and the courts have already proved many times that inmates should be afforded the protection of the law.
Public Opinion and Media Report.
Without the involvement of the media and opinion people, the ACHS downfall wouldn’t have been spread so extensively. Investigative journalism was critical in uncovering the flaws in the business and highlighting stories of neglect on the inmates in a way that legal documents were not able to do.
Newspapers also covered the cases in which prisoners died of conditions that could be treated or were injured because of the lack of timely treatment. These narratives brought the victims to life and turned dry legal cases into touching heart-wrenching stories of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who died in prison. These stories were reinforced by advocacy groups who collaborated with journalists and ensured that ACHS and government agencies could no longer afford to underestimate the magnitude of the allegations.
These stories prompted an outcry of outrage as they spread through the population. To most Americans, the thought that inmates were dying because of neglect in the taxpayer-funded facilities was horrifying and unbearable. The social media also contributed to the discussion and gave activists and families a platform to speak out and build momentum in reforming.
This media buzz and outcry forced legislators to respond. State authorities were under pressure to cancel ACHS contracts, enhance monitoring and implement reforms to safeguard the healthcare rights of inmates. The policy was influenced directly by public opinion, and this is yet another demonstration that media exposure can be a potent driving force.
The ACHS lawsuits were used in the larger context of the debate over the larger problem of private prison healthcare. They made the masses engage with uncomfortable realities about the way the society treats its imprisoned people and the role in which profit-making models should play in the area where human life is to be lost.
Correctional Healthcare of the Future in the United States.
The fall ACHS experienced and the students who sued them made a permanent mark in the future of correctional healthcare in the U.S. Even though there are still a lot of challenges the scandal triggered discussions of reform, accountability, and other alternatives to the current system.
Transparency and accountability is one of the largest pushes. States are currently pressured to see that prison healthcare providers are up to the task. This involves demanding more comprehensive reporting on the deaths of inmates, routine inspections and performance-based renewals of contracts. The idea is to ensure that it becomes difficult to companies to cut corners at the expense of no action.
The other trend is the development of new prison healthcare models. Other states are even planning to abandon private providers altogether, and either depend on state-owned healthcare systems or collaborate with publicly owned hospitals and universities. These models are more concerned about accountability to the population rather than profit and are designed to minimize the economic motive of withholding care.
Others are also demanding some federal regulation, claiming that federal prison healthcare must be received on the same level with national standards instead of a wide range of state-to-state variation. Federal audits of prison healthcare, new laws to enhance the rights of inmates, and increased DOJ intervention in instances of systemic neglect, are all proposed.
In the future, it is assumed that the future of correctional healthcare will be defined by a combination of legal pressure, public advocacy, and policy change. It is yet to be determined whether the U.S. will continue along the privatization of their healthcare or will turn to more government-based systems. However, there is one thing that is certain: the history of ACHS legal suits has meant that the necessity of change is no longer something that can be overlooked.
Conclusion
Arguably, the case of Armor Correctional Health Services is not only a story of corporate collapse, but it is also a wake-up call of what happens when profit is prioritized over human dignity. The consequences of the alleged negligence by ACHS were devastating and far-reaching as far as preventable deaths and emotional trauma to families are concerned.
The lawsuits demonstrated structural issues not only in a single company but in the whole correctional healthcare sector. They brought up ethical concerns regarding privatization, pointed out constitutional rights abuses, and compelled governments to address their responsibilities in regulating the care of prisoners.
With the U.S. still struggling to address the issue of prison reform, the collapse of ACHS is a warning and a wake-up call. The inmates can be put in prison, but they are human beings, and they have the right to healthcare. The difficulty now is to make sure that the next generation systems, (either privately or publicly owned), will bear that underlying reality.
FAQs
What is the best thing about Armor Correctional Health Services?
ACHS has gained a reputation of offering healthcare services to prisons and jails in the U.S., however, they were notorious due to lawsuits claiming negligence, medical malpractice, and deaths of inmates.
What is the number of lawsuits ACHS has had to deal with?
The number of lawsuits is hard to follow, but ACHS had dozens of lawsuits in various states, such as Florida and Wisconsin, many of which were wrongful death suits.
Did Armor Correctional Health Services go out of business?
Yes. In 2019, after accruing legal fees and losing contracts and facing public pressure, ACHS declared bankruptcy because it could no longer sustain its operations financially.
So what are the rights of inmates in relation to healthcare?
The inmates are given the right to proper medical attention under the Eighth Amendment. Courts have held that intentional neglect of medical needs of inmates constitutes a form of violation of this right.
So what do you think can be done to improve prison healthcare in the future?
Some possible changes are increased transparency, increased government regulation, and the abandonment of privatised healthcare systems in favour of state or publicly responsible ones.
