#507

Joint Legislative Committee on Performance
Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER)
Report to
the Mississippi Legislature

Medical Care for State Inmates: The
Department of Corrections’ Contract
Management and Its Provision of
Specialty Medical Care
From January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007, the Department of Corrections and its
contractor, Wexford Health Services, did not ensure that all inmates received timely access
to quality medical care, as follows:
•

Regarding routine medical care, during the period of review, MDOC and Wexford
did not ensure that all state inmates received timely access to the sick call process
and two-year dental prophylaxis within the intervals established by the medical
services contract and by national correctional standards for medical care.

•

MDOC’s current contract with Wexford does not address chronic medical care;
therefore, MDOC cannot ensure that Wexford develops and implements a system
of quality chronic medical care for the state’s inmates.

•

Regarding mental health care, MDOC does not require that Wexford keep mental
health records organized separately from inmates’ other medical records, a
condition that could affect continuity of care.

Also, medical records for the review period do not contain documentation that MDOC and
Wexford provided timely specialty medical care to all state inmates needing such care.
Concerning medical staffing, during the review period, Wexford’s staffing levels
were not in compliance with contract requirements. Also, MDOC did not require Wexford
to submit documentation of the professional credentials of all medical staff.
Neither MDOC nor Wexford has an effective quality assurance process for contract
compliance and Wexford does not assure confidentiality and security in the transport of
inmates’ medical records and medications from one correctional facility to another.
Regarding MDOC’s FY 2007 medical expenditures, MDOC spent approximately
$42.8 million for inmate medical care in FY 2007, approximately $1.1 million more than it
would have expended for Wexford’s turnkey proposal to provide comprehensive medical
services to inmates and approximately $2.8 million more than its FY 2007 appropriation
for medical services.
December 11, 2007

PEER: The Mississippi Legislature’s Oversight Agency
The Mississippi Legislature created the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance
Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER Committee) by statute in 1973. A joint
committee, the PEER Committee is composed of seven members of the House of
Representatives appointed by the Speaker and seven members of the Senate appointed
by the Lieutenant Governor. Appointments are made for four-year terms with one
Senator and one Representative appointed from each of the U. S. Congressional
Districts. Committee officers are elected by the membership with officers alternating
annually between the two houses. All Committee actions by statute require a majority
vote of four Representatives and four Senators voting in the affirmative.
Mississippi’s constitution gives the Legislature broad power to conduct examinations
and investigations. PEER is authorized by law to review any public entity, including
contractors supported in whole or in part by public funds, and to address any issues
that may require legislative action. PEER has statutory access to all state and local
records and has subpoena power to compel testimony or the production of documents.
PEER provides a variety of services to the Legislature, including program evaluations,
economy and efficiency reviews, financial audits, limited scope evaluations, fiscal
notes, special investigations, briefings to individual legislators, testimony, and other
governmental research and assistance. The Committee identifies inefficiency or
ineffectiveness or a failure to accomplish legislative objectives, and makes
recommendations for redefinition, redirection, redistribution and/or restructuring of
Mississippi government. As directed by and subject to the prior approval of the PEER
Committee, the Committee’s professional staff executes audit and evaluation projects
obtaining information and developing options for consideration by the Committee.
The PEER Committee releases reports to the Legislature, Governor, Lieutenant
Governor, and the agency examined.
The Committee assigns top priority to written requests from individual legislators and
legislative committees. The Committee also considers PEER staff proposals and written
requests from state officials and others.

PEER Committee
Post Office Box 1204
Jackson, MS 39215-1204
(Tel.) 601-359-1226
(Fax) 601-359-1420
(Website) http://www.peer.state.ms.us

The Mississippi Legislature

Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review
PEER Committee
SENATORS

REPRESENTATIVES

MERLE FLOWERS
Vice Chair
GARY JACKSON
Secretary
SAMPSON JACKSON
DEAN KIRBY
EZELL LEE
LYNN POSEY
RICHARD WHITE

HARVEY MOSS
Chair
WILLIE BAILEY
ALYCE CLARKE
DIRK DEDEAUX
JOEY HUDSON
WALTER ROBINSON
RAY ROGERS

TELEPHONE:
(601) 359-1226

Post Office Box 1204
Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1204
Max K. Arinder, Ph. D.

FAX:
(601) 359-1420

Executive Director

OFFICES:
Woolfolk Building, Suite 301-A
501 North West Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

www.peer.state.ms.us

December 11, 2007
Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor
Honorable Amy Tuck, Lieutenant Governor
Honorable Billy McCoy, Speaker of the House
Members of the Mississippi State Legislature
On December 11, 2007, the PEER Committee authorized release of the report entitled
Medical Care for State Inmates:
The Department of Corrections’ Contract
Management and Its Provision of Specialty Medical Care.

Representative Harvey Moss, Chair

This report does not recommend increased funding or additional staff.

PEER Report #507

i

ii

PEER Report #507

Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal ......................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary

....................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction

........................................................................................................................ 1

Authority
........................................................................................................................ 1
Scope and Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1
Method
........................................................................................................................ 2
Background

........................................................................................................................ 5

How the Department of Corrections Provided Medical
Services to Inmates Prior to FY 2007 ................................................................................. 5
In-House Provision of Services and Contract with the University
of Mississippi Medical Center .............................................................................................. 6
Contract with Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ............................................................. 6
Decision to Seek a New Contractor in 2005........................................................................ 6
The Current Medical Services Contract and the
State’s Assumption of Increased Risk ............................................................................................ 8
Risks to Inmates ........................................................................................................................ 9
Financial Risks to the State...................................................................................................10
Access to Medical Care Provided by Wexford.............................................................................11
Routine Medical Care for Inmates .......................................................................................11
Chronic Medical Care for Inmates.......................................................................................26
Mental Health Care for Inmates...........................................................................................33
Wexford’s and MDOC’s Provision of Specialty Medical Care ...................................................37
No Written Timeliness Standards for Monitoring the
Status of Inmates’ Specialty Care Cases ..........................................................................38
No Effective Method for Tracking Inmates through
the Specialty Care Process ..................................................................................................49
Operational Issues: MDOC and Wexford.....................................................................................52
Issues with Medical Staffing .................................................................................................52
Issues with Quality Assurance for Contract Compliance
and Recordkeeping...............................................................................................................61
MDOC’s FY 2007 Medical Expenditures .............................................................................68

PEER Report #507

iii

Table of Contents (continued)
Recommendations

......................................................................................................................72

Appendix A:

Population Sizes, Calculated Sample Sizes, and
Actual Sample Sizes, for all Three Parent Facilities
Combined, January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007 .........................77

Appendix B:

Compliance Rates and Ranges for all Three Parent
Facilities Combined, January 1, 2007, through
May 31, 2007 .............................................................................................78

Appendix C:

Compliance Percentages for Inmate Intake,
by Parent Facility ......................................................................................79

Appendix D:

Compliance Percentages for Sick Call Triage, by Parent
Facility ........................................................................................................80

Appendix E:

Compliance Percentages for Sick Call 7-Day Physician
Visit, by Parent Facility ...........................................................................81

Appendix F:

Compliance Percentages for 2-Year Dental Prophylaxis,
by Parent Facility ......................................................................................82

Appendix G:

Compliance Rates and Ranges for Chronic Care,
for all Three Parent Facilities Combined.............................................83

Appendix H:

Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care 6-Month
Visit, by Parent Facility ...........................................................................84

Appendix I:

Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care 6-Month
Physician Referral Notation, by Parent Facility..................................85

Appendix J:

Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care Medication
Treatment Plan, by Parent Facility........................................................86

Appendix K:

2007 1st and 2nd Quarter Staffing Levels, by Parent
Facility ........................................................................................................87

iv

PEER Report #507

Table of Contents (continued)
Appendix L:

Number of Licensed, Registered, or Certified
Medical Staff Employed by Wexford at the Three
Parent Facilities Combined, as of October 29, 2007.........................90

Agency Response

......................................................................................................................91

PEER Report #507

v

vi

PEER Report #507

List of Exhibits
1.

Summary of Wexford’s Compliance with Standards for
Routine Medical Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities,
January 1 through May 31, 2007.........................................................................................13

2.

Summary of Wexford’s Performance Regarding Chronic Medical
Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities,
January 1 through May 31, 2007.........................................................................................28

3.

Flow Chart of Specialty Care Process from Consult Request to
Appointment Scheduled for Timeliness of Specialty Care ............................................39

4.

Number of Days Between Wexford’s Completion of Consult
and Specialty Care Appointment.........................................................................................41

5.

Number of Days Between Wexford’s Completion of Consult
and Submission to MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care ......................................................42

6.

Number of Days Between Receipt and Review of Consult
Request by MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care ....................................................................44

7.

Number of Days Between MDOC’s Review of Consult
Request and Appointment Date ..........................................................................................45

8.

Summary of Wexford’s Staffing of MDOC Parent Facilities, January-June 2007 ......54

9.

Liquidated Damages Recommended by the MDOC Chief Medical
Officer for Staffing Shortages between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007............61

10.

Percentages of Medical Records PEER Considered to be Indeterminate
for the Period January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007 ..................................................66

11.

Comparison of Covered Medical Services, Responsibilities, and Costs of the
Turnkey and Combination Models for Providing Inmate Medical Care, FY 2007.....69

PEER Report #507

vii

viii

PEER Report #507

Medical Care for State Inmates: The
Department of Corrections’ Contract
Management and Its Provision of
Specialty Medical Care
Executive Summary
Introduction
To address legislative concerns regarding the Mississippi
Department of Corrections’ (MDOC’s) management of state
inmates’ medical care, including management of the
contract with Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and the
department’s own provision of specialty medical care,
PEER reviewed the following areas of concern:
•

the risk to the state related to both hidden costs
and care for inmates associated with the
Department of Corrections’ decision to change the
scope of services that had traditionally been
required of its medical services contractors;

•

whether the contractor, Wexford Health Sources,
met minimum standards for routine medical care
as set out in the contract with MDOC for medical
care provided to state inmates;

•

MDOC’s assurance of the provision of chronic care,
including mental health care;

•

MDOC’s provision of specialty medical care; and,

•

MDOC’s and Wexford’s operational issues while
providing inmate medical care.

The review focuses on whether MDOC’s current medical
services program complies with accepted standards
promulgated to assure the quality of medical care
provided to persons under control of the state’s
correctional system, including assurance of timely and
appropriate access to health care providers and services.

PEER Report #507

ix

PEER sampled inmates’ medical records dated between
January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007, and limited the review
to the medical records of inmates housed at one of the
three main correctional facilities (Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility [CMCF], South Mississippi
Correctional Institution [SMCI], and Mississippi State
Penitentiary [MSP]), hereafter referred to as the “parent
facilities.”

MDOC’s Contract for Inmate Medical Services
In July 2005, MDOC’s previous medical services provider,
Correctional Medical Services, informed the department
that it did not wish to be considered for renewal of its
contract ending June 30, 2006, thereby necessitating that
the department move forward with a search for a new
medical services provider.
Following departmental evaluations of responses to a
request for proposals, the Department of Corrections
entered into a contract with Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
in June 2006 for FY 2007 through FY 2009 for a total of
$94,312,523. The contract requires that Wexford meet all
national standards (the American Correctional Association
[ACA] and the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care [NCCHC]) for inmate medical care.
The contract between MDOC and Wexford includes inmate
medical services for the three major correctional facilities,
the eleven satellite facilities (also known as regional
facilities), seventeen community work centers, three male
restitution centers, and the Governor’s Mansion work site.
The contract with Wexford does not include the state’s
private correctional facilities or county regional
correctional facilities. Inmates are transported to one of
the three parent facilities for medical care.
The type of contract MDOC entered into with Wexford is
for a “combination” model for delivery of medical services
to inmates. Under this model, the contractor assumes
responsibility for medical care rendered inside
institutions, with the correctional agency taking
responsibility for important functions such as specialty
care rendered outside of the correctional institutions and
utilization review. This enables the correctional agency to
manage the care given to the inmates, but exposes the
correctional agency to additional financial and managerial
risks, as the agency becomes responsible for providing
certain forms of care.
In entering into the current agreement with Wexford, the
department has assumed for the state an increased risk, as

x

PEER Report #507

the department is now required to bear directly a greater
share of the responsibility for delivering medical care to
inmates. As the state assumes greater responsibility and
control over the delivery of services, it has more
opportunities for both controlling expenses and better
managing the delivery of care. However, the state must
ensure that quality specialty medical care is provided to
inmates and that this care can be rendered to inmates in a
manner that will not overly extend the state’s financial
resources.

Access to Medical Care Provided by Wexford
Based on PEER’s compliance review with medical service contract standards, from
January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007, the Department of Corrections and its
contractor, Wexford Health Services, did not ensure that all inmates received timely
and adequate access to quality medical care.
To determine the quality of medical care state inmates
received from January 1 through May 31, 2007, PEER
reviewed samples of medical records at each of the three
parent facilities for compliance with standards of the
medical services contract with Wexford and for
compliance with accepted national standards regarding
routine and chronic care, including mental health care.

Routine Medical Care for Inmates
During the period of review, MDOC and its contractor Wexford did not
ensure that all state inmates received timely access to the sick call process
and two-year dental prophylaxis within the intervals established by the
medical services contract and by national correctional standards for
medical care. Wexford did comply with applicable standards for the medical
care component of the inmate intake process.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford Health Sources, Wexford is responsible for all
routine medical care for state inmates at the three parent
correctional facilities.
PEER analyzed the following areas of routine medical care
during the period of review:

PEER Report #507

•

the medical care component of the inmate intake
process;

•

the sick call process; and,

•

the two-year dental prophylaxis.

xi

According to the contract, Wexford must ensure timely
access to routine medical care by meeting at least an 85%
compliance rate for the three medical services contract
areas listed above. Failure to meet at least an 85%
compliance rate could subject Wexford to predetermined
contractual financial penalties, hereafter referred to as
liquidated damages, as dictated by the contract.
Exhibit A, page xiii, summarizes Wexford’s compliance
with standards at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP for routine
medical care. As shown in the exhibit, during the period of
review, Wexford complied substantially with contract
standards and national correctional standards in regard to
ensuring that state inmates received adequate access to
health care upon intake into the state correctional system.
However, Wexford did not ensure that all inmates had
timely access to medical care through the sick call process
in accordance with contract requirements and national
correctional standards. Also, Wexford did not document
whether all inmates had a dental prophylaxis every two
years in accordance with contract requirements.

Chronic Medical Care for Inmates
MDOC’s current contract with Wexford does not address the issue of chronic
care. Thus MDOC cannot ensure that Wexford develops and implements a
system of quality chronic medical care for the state’s inmates.
Although Wexford provides chronic care to inmates, since
MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford does not
address chronic care, MDOC does not audit chronic care
for the same 85% compliance rate as the other medical
areas and does not assess liquidated damages regarding
chronic care. Therefore, in assessing Wexford’s
performance in providing chronic care, PEER used
Wexford’s policies and procedures, MDOC’s policies and
procedures, and national standards as the compliance
standards.
PEER assessed Wexford’s compliance with providing timely
access to quality chronic care for state inmates in the
correctional system for the following areas:

xii

•

chronic care visit at least every six months;

•

notation in the medical records of scheduling a
follow-up chronic care visit in six months; and,

•

a medication treatment plan for each inmate under
chronic care.

PEER Report #507

Exhibit A: Summary of Wexford’s Compliance with Standards for
Routine Medical Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities,
January 1 through May 31, 2007
Meets 85% compliance rate for inmate intake standard?
Inmate Intake

Yes

Inmates’ understanding of access to
medical care




Inmates receive initial health
assessment within one month of
intake




Inmates receive initial dental
screening within 7 calendar days of
intake




Inmates receive dental exam within
one month of intake




Psychiatric/mental health screening
within 5 calendar days of intake




No

Sick Call
Inmates’ sick call triaged within 24
hours




Inmates receive a physician visit
within 7 calendar days




2 Year Dental Prophylaxis




Documentation of inmates’ receipt
of a dental prophylaxis at least
every 2 years
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC’s inmate medical records.

Exhibit B, page xiv, summarizes Wexford’s performance
regarding chronic care at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP. As shown
in the exhibit, during the period of review, Wexford did not
comply with its own policies and procedures regarding
timely access to chronic care and proper documentation of
all chronic care follow-up referrals. However, Wexford did
comply with documentation of a medication treatment
plan requirement.

PEER Report #507

xiii

Exhibit B: Summary of Wexford’s Performance Regarding Chronic
Medical Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities, January 1
through May 31, 2007
Chronic Care 6 Month Visit
Inmates receive a chronic care
visit at least every 6 months

Compliance rates*
59%

Chronic Care Physician
Referral Notation
Physicians notate a referral for a
chronic care follow-up visit
within 6 months of the inmates’
previous chronic care visit

76%

Chronic Care Medication
Treatment Plan
Physicians develop and notate a
medication treatment plan for
chronic care inmates

85%

*MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford did not address chronic medical care, although Wexford does
provide chronic care services to the three parent correctional facilities.
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC’s inmate medical records.

Mental Health Care for Inmates
MDOC does not require that Wexford keep mental health records organized
separately from the inmates’ other medical records, a condition that could
affect continuity of care.
Wexford staff do not consistently file mental health
records with records for chronic care. Critical mental
health information may be overlooked by medical
personnel due to their inability to locate such information
within the inmates’ medical records.
Also, for both chronic and mental health care, MDOC has
not required Wexford to develop an effective system-wide
method of managing inmates’ appointments or
maintaining uniform log sheets. As a result, MDOC cannot
assure continuity of care.

xiv

PEER Report #507

Wexford’s and MDOC’s Provision of Specialty Medical Care
Inmates’ medical records from January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007, do not
contain documentation that MDOC and its contractor Wexford provided timely
specialty medical care to all state inmates needing such care.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford and MDOC share responsibility for
providing inmates with access to specialty medical care.
As of July 1, 2006, Wexford is responsible for providing
the following specialty care: optometry, radiology,
dialysis, audiology, and care for sexually transmitted
diseases, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. MDOC is financially
responsible for all other specialty care services for state
inmates off site and is responsible for oversight of the
utilization review process for specialty care for all state
inmates.
PEER reviewed MDOC’s and Wexford’s implementation of
their respective responsibilities for inmates’ specialty
medical care from January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007,
and concluded that MDOC and Wexford did not document
timeliness of specialty care for all inmates during that
period because neither Wexford nor MDOC has established
written timeliness standards for monitoring consult
requests. Also, neither Wexford nor MDOC has
implemented an effective method of tracking inmates
through the specialty care process.

Operational Issues: MDOC and Wexford
During PEER’s review of inmate medical records to
determine the quality of medical care state inmates
received, PEER identified operational issues that also affect
quality of care:
•

medical staffing;

•

quality assurance and recordkeeping; and,

•

MDOC’s medical expenditures.

PEER also compared MDOC’s FY 2007 medical costs under
the contract with Wexford to the correctional system’s FY
2006 costs for medical care.

PEER Report #507

xv

Issues with Medical Staffing
For the period of review, PEER noted the following
deficiencies in the medical staffing of the correctional
facilities:
•

Wexford’s medical staffing levels were not in
compliance with the contract requirements.
Neither MDOC nor Wexford could ensure
appropriate and timely access to quality medical
care for state inmates because of staff shortages.

•

MDOC did not require Wexford to submit
documentation of all licensures, certifications,
and registrations of all medical staff to MDOC
for review. Without providing any type of
oversight, MDOC relied on Wexford to ensure that
its medical personnel were properly licensed,
certified, or registered in the state of Mississippi.
As a result, during the period of review at least five
individuals without proper credentials provided
medical care to inmates.

•

Neither MDOC nor Wexford ensured sufficient
orientation/training of temporary medical staff.
Although Wexford has an orientation program in
place for newly hired full-time medical staff, MDOC
did not require in contract that Wexford provide
temporary nursing staff (“agency nurses”) with
basic orientation relative to provision of medical
care in a correctional environment.

PEER also determined that MDOC has not collected
liquidated damages for Wexford’s failure to meet staffing
requirements of the contract. Although as of June 30,
2007, the MDOC Chief Medical Officer had recommended
assessment of over $1 million in liquidated damages, of
which $931,310 was incurred due to staffing shortages,
MDOC management has not formally assessed or collected
any liquidated damages from Wexford to recoup state
funds paid for staffing that was not provided.

Issues with Quality Assurance for Contract Compliance and
Recordkeeping
During the period of review, neither MDOC nor Wexford
had a quality assurance program for contract compliance
in place that ensured timely access and continuity of
medical care through accurate and appropriate medical
recordkeeping. The major areas of concern associated
with quality assurance and medical recordkeeping are as
follows.

xvi

PEER Report #507

•

Neither MDOC nor Wexford has an effective
quality assurance process. Wexford does not have
a quality assurance plan in place that ensures that
the MDOC Health Service Administrator receives
accurate medical compliance data from Wexford’s
databases to use in conducting compliance audits.
Also, MDOC did not establish in its contract with
Wexford a formal audit methodology that utilizes
confidence levels and compliance ranges and
includes all contracted medical service areas.
Therefore, MDOC cannot ensure that all state
inmates receive timely access to quality medical
care.

•

Significant percentages of inmates’ medical
records lack critical medical information.
Wexford does not have a quality assurance
program in place that ensures that all medical
records are accurate and can be used to make
timely decisions in regard to state inmates’ medical
care.

•

Wexford does not assure confidentiality in the
transport of inmates’ medical records. Wexford
does not ensure that all medical records and
medications are sealed at the time of inmate
transport from one correctional facility to another.

MDOC’s FY 2007 Medical Expenditures
MDOC spent approximately $42.8 million for inmate medical care in FY 2007,
approximately $1.1 million more than it would have expended for Wexford’s
turnkey proposal to provide comprehensive medical services to inmates and
approximately $2.8 million more than its FY 2007 appropriation for medical
services.
In addition to paying Wexford approximately $30 million
for providing routine medical care, the department
incurred expenses of approximately $12.8 million for
providing specialty medical care for inmates. By opting to
use the combination model of service delivery, the
department expended approximately $42.8 million, or $1.1
million more than it would have if the department had
accepted Wexford’s turnkey proposal.
MDOC’s FY 2007 appropriation bill included spending
authority for $40,011,620 to operate the department’s
medical services program. In spending approximately
$42.8 million on medical services, the department
exceeded its FY 2007 spending authority by approximately
$2.8 million.

PEER Report #507

xvii

According to staff of the Department of Finance and
Administration, as of October 3, 2007, MDOC had
exceeded its total FY 2007 spending authority by
approximately $5.2 million, with $2.8 million of that
amount attributable to medical services. To cover the $5.2
million that it overspent during FY 2007, the department
used a portion of its FY 2008 appropriation. This practice
violates MISS. CODE ANN. Section 27-104-25 (1972), which
states that an agency may pay a claim from a prior fiscal
year if the claim is presented within one year, if the claim
does not cause the agency to exceed its prior year’s
appropriation bill, and if sufficient funds remain in the
current year’s allotment—i. e., appropriation amount—to
pay the claim. Because the department had a balance of
$1.7 million remaining from its FY 2007 appropriation, the
department did not have sufficient funds remaining to
offset the $5.2 million that it overspent in FY 2007.

Recommendations
1.

xviii

The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should seek to amend the department’s medical
services contract to require Wexford to:
•

use a uniform method (such as a date stamp)
by which qualified personnel document the
date of receipt of inmates’ sick call requests
and the date on which such sick call requests
are triaged. Documentation should include
verification by the initials or signature of the
person receiving the request or conducting
triage;

•

document the required two-year dental
prophylaxis in an inmate’s dental records;

•

provide a system of chronic medical care for
inmates, incorporating standards of the
American Correctional Association and
National Commission on Correctional Health
Care for inmates’ chronic medical care;

•

establish in writing acceptable time frames for
submitting specialty consult requests to
MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care. For those
consult requests that fall outside the
acceptable time frame, Wexford should include
notations on the inmate’s medical record
regarding the status of the request and an
explanation of the delay;

PEER Report #507

•

segregate mental health records within an
inmate’s medical records by use of a separate
tab;

•

develop and utilize a uniform management
information system for logging chronic and
mental health care, including, at a minimum,
inmate name and number, facility location,
date, type of condition;

•

design and implement a computerized
management information system that allows
staff at all of the correctional facilities the
capability to track and monitor inmates’
chronic care and mental health appointments;

•

submit to MDOC for review and final approval
the names of all potential medical staff,
accompanied by evidence of professional
licensure, certification, and/or registration
prior to their employment; and,

•

secure all health records in sealed boxes and
all medications in sealed envelopes prior to
the transfer of inmates among correctional
facilities. Also, the contract should require
Wexford health care staff and MDOC
transportation officers to sign off on the
transfer record that lists all the medications
the inmate has en route, the number of pills en
route, and the number of doses en route.
Upon arrival at the receiving correctional
facility, Wexford health care staff should
inventory the contents of the inmate’s
medication envelope to ensure that the
contents reconcile with those listed on the
transfer record.

2. The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should ensure that Wexford conducts triage seven
days a week at all correctional facilities as is presently
required in the contract.
3. The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should develop and adhere to written timeliness
standards for monitoring the actions that the
department should take during the portion of the
specialty care process that is within the parameters of
the department’s responsibility. For example, MDOC
should establish an acceptable time frame for
reviewing consult requests upon receipt from the
contractor and scheduling specialty appointments and
surgeries. Then, for those consult requests that fall
outside the acceptable time frame, MDOC should

PEER Report #507

xix

include notations on the inmate’s medical record
regarding the status of the request and an explanation
of the delay.
4. MDOC should create a management information
system accessible to medical and dental providers and
directors at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility,
South Mississippi Correctional Institution, and
Mississippi State Penitentiary. This system should
incorporate action standards for the completion,
submission, receipt, and review of consult requests
and the scheduling of appointments and surgeries,
and should trigger an alert to responsible personnel if
the status of an inmate’s case is not checked within a
reasonable time frame, as established by Wexford and
MDOC in their timeliness standards. These standards
should account for the possibility of Wexford’s or
MDOC’s need to obtain additional information before
making decisions regarding the request and the
response time needed for such, as well as the
department’s prioritization of requests.
5. Wexford should periodically provide MDOC staff with
documentation of its formal recruitment plan to
attract and retain appropriately licensed health care
staff.
6. MDOC should require Wexford to develop a strategy
for ensuring that all agency nurses employed at one
of the state’s correctional facilities receive basic
orientation regarding provision of medical care in a
correctional environment prior to assuming their
duties.
7. For purposes of ensuring compliance with contractual
requirements, MDOC should require Wexford to
design and implement a verifiable management
information system that ensures that reports
submitted by Wexford to MDOC accurately reflect
information recorded on source documents--e. g., sick
call logs, chronic care logs.
8. MDOC should ensure that Wexford provides all
necessary medical services and maintains all medical
record documentation as required in its inmate
medical services contract with the department. Also,
in order to determine Wexford’s compliance with
contract provisions, MDOC should develop a formal
audit methodology that includes appropriate
statistical sampling to allow the department to
extrapolate the sample results to the entire
population.

xx

PEER Report #507

9. MDOC should make formal demand to Wexford for
the collection of liquidated damages provided for in
the contract for failing to adhere to contractual
requirements.
10. The State Auditor should investigate the department’s
overspending of its FY 2007 medical services
appropriation and consider taking any necessary
collection actions against MDOC personnel.

For More Information or Clarification, Contact:
PEER Committee
P.O. Box 1204
Jackson, MS 39215-1204
(601) 359-1226
http://www.peer.state.ms.us
Representative Harvey Moss, Chair
Corinth, MS 662-287-4689
Senator Merle Flowers, Vice Chair
Olive Branch, MS 662-349-3983
Senator Gary Jackson, Secretary
Kilmichael, MS 662-262-9273

PEER Report #507

xxi

xxii

PEER Report #507

Medical Care for State Inmates: The
Department of Corrections’ Contract
Management and Its Provision of
Specialty Medical Care
Introduction

Authority
In response to a legislative request, the PEER Committee
reviewed the Mississippi Department of Corrections’
(MDOC’s) management of its current medical services
contract and its provision of specialty medical care. The
Committee acted in accordance with MISS. CODE ANN.
Section 5-3-51 et seq. (1972).

Scope and Purpose
To address legislative concerns regarding MDOC’s
management of state inmates’ medical care, including
management of the contract with Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., and the department’s own provision of specialty
medical care, PEER reviewed the following areas of
concern:

PEER Report #507

•

the risk to the state related to both hidden costs
and care for inmates associated with the
Department of Corrections’ decision to change the
scope of services that had traditionally been
required of its medical services contractors;

•

whether the contractor, Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., met minimum standards for routine medical
care as set out in the contract with MDOC for
medical care provided to state inmates at Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility, South Mississippi
Correctional Institution, and the Mississippi State

1

Penitentiary (see complete list of all facilities
covered by the contract with Wexford, page 5);
•

MDOC’s assurance of the provision of chronic
medical care, including mental health care;

•

MDOC’s provision of specialty medical care; and,

•

MDOC’s and Wexford’s operational issues while
providing inmate medical care (e. g., staffing,
quality assurance, recordkeeping, and MDOC’s
medical expenditures).

The review focuses on whether MDOC’s current medical
services program complies with accepted standards
promulgated to assure the quality of medical care
provided to persons under control of the state’s
correctional system, including assurance of timely and
appropriate access to health care providers and services.
In view of ongoing litigation concerning state inmates in
Unit 32 of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, PEER did not
include as part of its review sample (see following section)
any inmates who were housed in Unit 32 between January
1, 2007, and May 31, 2007.

Method
PEER reviewed medical records dated between January 1,
2007, and May 31, 2007, because January 1, 2007, was the
first date Wexford Health Sources became subject to
liquidated damage assessments by MDOC for
noncompliance with contract standards.
PEER utilized a statistical sampling method to test for
compliance with minimum contract standards for inmates’
medical care. PEER limited the review to the medical
records of inmates housed at one of the three parent
facilities (Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, South
Mississippi Correctional Institution, and the Mississippi
State Penitentiary) because the majority of state inmates
are held in one of these facilities. The number of records
refers to inmate medical visits, not individual inmates,
since some inmates could have had multiple visits.
In collecting data for this review, PEER used the
contractor’s log sheets as source data, chose an
appropriate sampling technique, and calculated sample
sizes, yielding distinct sample sizes for each category.
PEER utilized systematic random sampling, which is a
preferred method for obtaining a representative sample

2

PEER Report #507

from a population. This method provides for the selection
of records in such a way that all have an equal probability
of being included in the sample.
From the log sheets, PEER determined the total number of
records in each population for newly admitted inmates,
sick calls, dental, psychiatric referrals, chronic care, and
specialty care. (See Appendix A , page 77, for the totals,
along with the associated sample sizes.)
PEER then calculated the sample sizes for each population
based upon:
•

a +/-5% level of precision (i. e., error, the amount
PEER is willing to accept that the projected level of
compliance either overstates or understates the
actual level of compliance);

•

a 95% confidence level (the amount of confidence
PEER has that the actual level of compliance falls
within the confidence interval); and,

•

a 50% expected deviation rate (expected variability
within the population). A deviation rate of 50% is
the most conservative rate possible, which requires
a greater number of records to be sampled in order
to generalize the results of the sample to the entire
population.

PEER used an accepted formula and published tables for
determining sample sizes for research activities. For
chronic care, PEER did not obtain the sample size needed
to maintain a 5% level of precision due to inmate
movement, which had resulted in corresponding
movement of medical records. The actual sample size for
chronic care records yielded a 6% level of precision.
PEER then divided the population for each key area by the
sample size to determine the interval size (k). PEER
randomly selected an integer between 1 and k to
determine a starting point, and then every kth record was
selected for review. PEER collected medical data from a
total of 1,341 records.
Also, PEER:

PEER Report #507

•

analyzed contractual standards relative to national
standards (i. e., those of the National Commission
on Correctional Health Care [NCCHC] and the
American Correctional Association [ACA]) to
develop evaluation criteria;

•

calculated compliance rates for each sample, where
appropriate; and,

3

•

compared compliance rates with the evaluation
criteria.

Because MDOC is responsible for most of the specialty
medical care services, Wexford’s compliance rates for this
category are not applicable. PEER reviewed and collected
data from a random sample of specialty care records to
calculate the timeliness of the specialty care process (from
completion of the consult by Wexford to scheduling of
appointments by MDOC).
PEER also reviewed and analyzed MDOC’s financial data
related to medical services costs for fiscal years 2006 and
2007.

4

PEER Report #507

Background
The contract between MDOC and Wexford includes the
three major correctional facilities, the eleven satellite
facilities (also known as regional facilities), seventeen
community work centers, three male restitution centers,
and the Governor’s Mansion work site. The contract with
Wexford does not include the state’s private correctional
facilities and county regional correctional facilities.
For medical care, inmates are transported to one of the
three major correctional facilities (hereafter referred to as
“parent facilities”). They are:
•

the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF),
located in Pearl;

•

the South Mississippi Correctional Institution
(SMCI), located in Leakesville; and,

•

the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP), located in
Parchman.

How the Department of Corrections Provided Medical Services to Inmates Prior to
FY 2007
Inmates are not
eligible for Medicaid
services, so the
department must use
its own resources to
provide medical care
to inmates.

Persons bound over to the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections become the state’s
responsibility for care and maintenance, including medical
services. Inmates are not eligible for Medicaid services, so
the department must use its own resources to provide
medical care to inmates (see MISS. CODE ANN. Section 475-901 [1972]).
Medical care has been a significant issue in Mississippi’s
correctional system. A component of the well-known
litigation regarding conditions of confinement, Gates v.
Collier, dealt with medical services at the Mississippi State
Penitentiary at Parchman in the early 1980s. See Gates v.
Collier, 501 F. 2d 1291 (5 Cir, 1974), for an overview of the
substantive conditions that gave rise to the litigation.

PEER Report #507

5

In-House Provision of Services and Contract with the University of Mississippi
Medical Center
Mississippi’s health services for inmates have evolved
since the Gates litigation. For many years, the department
opted to provide medical services through the use of
physicians and staff employed by the Department of
Corrections. Cases that required more demanding or
specialized care were directed to hospital facilities such as
the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson and
MDOC paid for the inmate’s care.
In July 1998, the department chose to contract out its
medical services to the University of Mississippi Medical
Center. This arrangement operated much like one with a
Health Maintenance Organization, with the Department of
Corrections paying a capitation for inmates served.

Contract with Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
In July 2005, CMS
(MDOC’s previous
medical services
contractor) informed
the department that it
did not wish to be
considered for renewal
of its contract ending
June 30, 2006.

The department’s relationship with the University of
Mississippi Medical Center terminated June 30, 2003, when
the Department of Corrections selected a new health
service provider, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS).
In July 2005, CMS informed the department that it did not
wish to be considered for renewal of its contract ending
June 30, 2006, thereby necessitating that the department
move forward with a search for a new medical services
provider.

Decision to Seek a New Contractor in 2005
Prior to CMS’s decision regarding renewal of its contract,
the department considered the potential for several service
delivery options. Documents obtained from the
Department of Corrections show that the senior staff of
the agency weighed the strengths and weaknesses of
returning to a model of service delivery under which the
agency would employ physicians and other medical service
providers. This is the approach the department had used
prior to 1998. During the years in which CMS managed
medical services for the agency, the department’s staff
monitored complaints and concerns about quality and
timeliness of care under the contract. Consequently, the
department had accumulated considerable knowledge of
the strengths and weaknesses associated with a so-called
“turnkey” system under which the department pays a

6

PEER Report #507

capitated rate for services and the contractor assumes
responsibility for the complete range of medical services
rendered to inmates. While not a formal needs assessment
in the strictest sense, the department had collected
information upon which it could base an assessment of
the strengths and weaknesses of these two models of
service delivery.
In preparing an RFP (request for proposals) for interested
bidders, the department considered a third option for
service delivery. In recent years, many correctional
systems have experimented with another model for service
delivery. Under this model, a contractor assumes
responsibility for medical care rendered inside
institutions, with the correctional agency taking
responsibility for important functions such as specialty
medical care rendered outside of the correctional
institutions and utilization review. This enables the
correctional agency to manage the care given to the
inmates, something lacking in the “turnkey” approach, but
exposes the correctional agency to additional financial and
managerial risks, as the agency becomes responsible for
providing certain forms of care.
Following
departmental
evaluations, the
Department of
Corrections entered
into a contract with
Wexford Health
Sources in June 2006
for FY 2007 through FY
2009 for a total of
$94,312,523.

In the fall of 2005, the Department of Corrections began
the process of seeking a new medical services contractor.
The department prepared a request for proposals that
required all interested parties to appear before
representatives of the department for a bidders’
conference on November 27, 2005. Responses to the RFP
were due January 27, 2006. The Department of
Corrections received three comprehensive proposals from
interested firms. Procedures employed by the department
met the Personal Service Contract Review Board’s
requirements for competitive procurement.
Following departmental evaluations, the Department of
Corrections entered into a contract with Wexford in June
2006 for FY 2007 through FY 2009 for a total of
$94,312,523. The contract requires that Wexford meet all
national standards (those of the American Correctional
Association [ACA] and the National Commission on
Correctional Health Care [NCCHC]) for inmate medical
care.

PEER Report #507

7

The Current Medical Services Contract and the
State’s Assumption of Increased Risk
The Department of
Corrections’ new
service delivery model
gives it more control
over the provision of
medical services to
inmates, but increases
the risks associated
with service delivery.

The contract itself raised questions regarding increased
risk to the state, particularly risks to inmates and financial
risks to the state. The Department of Corrections’ new
service delivery model gives it more control over the
provision of medical services to inmates, but increases the
risks associated with service delivery. The risk to inmates
is that of possible delays in specialty medical care (due to
the referral process for specialty care, which is not
included in the current contract; see page 38).
In making decisions about a new contract for inmate
health care, the department was faced with a clear
problem regarding costs of services, because turnkey
contracts such as the one with CMS are becoming more
expensive.

Wexford also provided
an alternative bid for
providing turnkey
services, the cost of
which would have
been approximately
$41.7 million per year.

As a case in point, the successful bidder, Wexford, also
provided an alternative bid for providing turnkey services
similar to those provided by CMS. The capitated rate for
such would have been $7.98 per inmate day. Based on an
inmate count of 14,300, the cost of this contract would
have been approximately $41.7 million per year. This is
evidence of the considerable increase in costs associated
with providing comprehensive care under a turnkey
program, which contributed to the department’s decision
to rely on a different model of service delivery.
While costs for providing a turnkey approach to
correctional medicine are increasing, such programs give
the state little control over ways to improve efficiency or
effectiveness in delivering health care services to the
inmate population. The Department of Corrections found
itself in the position of having to assume predictable, yet
considerable, known financial risks through a turnkey
approach or assume for itself increasing and
unquantifiable financial risk associated with providing
specialized care in exchange for the possibility that it
could manage timely, quality services better than a
turnkey contractor.
PEER’s review of the contract showed that, in entering into
the current agreement with Wexford, the department has
assumed for the state an increased risk, as the department
is now required to bear directly a greater share of the
responsibility for delivering medical care to inmates. As
the state assumes greater responsibility and control over
the delivery of services, it has more opportunities for both
controlling expenses and better managing the delivery of

8

PEER Report #507

care. But this responsibility carries with it an increased
risk to the state. The state must ensure that quality
specialty medical care is provided to inmates and that this
care can be rendered to inmates in a manner that will not
overly extend the state’s financial resources.
As stated above, PEER noted at least two potential risks,
based on the contract, of which the department and the
Legislature must be aware:
•

risks to inmates; and

•

financial risks to the state.

Risks to Inmates
In its review of the contract, PEER determined that the
process for referring inmates for specialty medical care,
and the provision of specialty care, which is not included
in the current contract with Wexford, could impact the
timeliness of specialty care.
In determining risks associated with inmate health care,
PEER reviewed the procedures for referrals to offsite care
and interviewed Wexford and MDOC staff about off-site
care for inmates. The main concern was whether inmates
were receiving timely medical care when referred for
specialty care. Based on interviews conducted with
Wexford staff, a review of MDOC specialty referral
procedures, and a brief observation of Wexford staff, the
vendor appeared to be following contract terms for
referrals for off-site care; however, this report includes a
determination of MDOC’s fulfillment of the contract terms
based on a sample of specialty care records. (See pages 37
through 51 for discussion.)
The current contract
calls for MDOC to
approve or deny
specialty care
referrals, schedule the
appointments,
transport the inmates
to the appointments,
and negotiate with offsite providers.

In the previous contract with CMS, the vendor was
responsible for specialty care, including referrals of
inmates, scheduling of appointments, and negotiating
contracts with off-site providers. The current contract
initially included a clause for the vendor to pay
transportation costs, but the contract was amended to
state that MDOC would provide transportation. The
current contract calls for MDOC to approve or deny
specialty care referrals, schedule the appointments,
transport the inmates to the appointments, and negotiate
with off-site providers.
This report addresses specialty medical care cases between
January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007, to determine whether
MDOC provided timely specialty medical care.

PEER Report #507

9

Additionally, PEER would note that the provision of both
routine and chronic medical care through a contractor,
while not constituting a new risk assumed by the state
under this contract, does pose issues for the quality of
care for inmates. The department must properly oversee
the provision of these services to ensure that inmates are
receiving the care to which they are entitled.

Financial Risks to the State
The contract also raised questions regarding financial
risks to the state. By contracting with Wexford for
approximately $30 million per year for inmate medical
care (excluding specialty care), MDOC avoided
approximately $11.7 million in costs that would have been
incurred under a contract with the lowest turnkey bidder
(which included specialty medical care in its contract
proposal); however, the department provided no
projections of the amount that could be saved by
providing specialty medical care outside the contract,
which could have resulted in the need for an additional
infusion of general funds to cover inmate medical costs.
The department’s
ability to manage care
ultimately plays a
critical role in whether
the state has benefited
from the changed
service model and has
realized, at worst,
costs no greater than
the state would have
incurred under a
turnkey program.

10

Ultimately, this created some uncertainty regarding the
total amount that would be spent on inmate health care,
thereby creating a risk that the state might have to spend
more to render inmate medical care than the department
had anticipated. The department’s ability to manage care
ultimately plays a critical role in whether the state has
benefited from the changed service model and has
realized, at worst, costs no greater than the state would
have incurred under a turnkey program.
In this report, PEER analyzed MDOC’s financial records to
determine whether MDOC spent more funds than
anticipated to cover inmate medical costs. (See pages 68
through 71 for discussion.)

PEER Report #507

Access to Medical Care Provided by Wexford
Based on PEER’s compliance review with medical service contract standards, from
January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007, the Department of Corrections and its
contractor, Wexford Health Services, did not ensure that all inmates received timely
and adequate access to quality medical care.
To determine the quality of medical care state inmates
received from January 1 through May 31, 2007, at Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility, South Mississippi
Correctional Institution, and the Mississippi State
Penitentiary, PEER reviewed medical records at each of the
three parent facilities for compliance with standards of the
medical services contract with Wexford and for
compliance with accepted national standards for
correctional institutions regarding routine, specialty, and
chronic medical care, including mental health care.

Routine Medical Care for Inmates
During the period of review, MDOC and its contractor Wexford did not
ensure that all state inmates received timely access to the sick call process
and two-year dental prophylaxis within the intervals established by the
medical services contract and by national correctional standards for
medical care. Wexford did comply with applicable standards for the medical
care component of the inmate intake process.

According to the terms
of the contract, routine
medical care consists
of any non-emergent
medical care than can
be completed on-site
at one of the three
parent facilities
without consulting a
specialist.

According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford Health Sources, Wexford is responsible for all
routine medical care for state inmates at the three parent
correctional facilities (i. e., Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility, South Mississippi Correctional Institution, and the
Mississippi State Penitentiary). According to the terms of
the contract, routine medical care consists of any nonemergent medical care than can be completed on-site at
one of the three parent facilities without consulting a
specialist.
PEER analyzed the following areas of routine medical care
during the period of review:

PEER Report #507

•

the medical care component of the inmate intake
process;

•

the sick call process; and,

11

•

According to the
contract, Wexford must
ensure inmates timely
access to routine
medical care by
meeting at least an
85% compliance rate
for specified medical
service areas.

the two-year dental prophylaxis.

According to the contract, Wexford must ensure timely
access to routine medical care by meeting at least an 85%
compliance rate for the three medical services contract
areas listed above. Failure to meet at least an 85%
compliance rate could subject Wexford to predetermined
contractual financial penalties, hereafter referred to as
liquidated damages, as dictated by the contract.
Exhibit 1, page 13, summarizes Wexford’s compliance with
standards at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP for routine medical
care. Appendix B, page 78, summarizes the compliance
rates and ranges for all three parent facilities combined
for PEER’s review of routine medical care of inmates.
The following sections include discussions of each of the
compliance issues.

Medical Care Component of the Inmate Intake Process
During the period
substantially with
standards in regard
access to health care

of review, Wexford Health Sources complied
contract standards and national correctional
to ensuring that state inmates received adequate
upon intake into the state correctional system.

Once an inmate is convicted and sentenced to a state
correctional facility, he or she must go through the intake
process at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF)
in Pearl before being sent to another state facility.
According to the contract, Wexford is responsible for the
medical component of the inmate intake process for all
new inmates in the state correctional system. This process
includes:

12

•

distribution and collection of a form that explains
how the inmate is to receive access medical care
that he or she may need. The inmate must sign this
“access to medical care understanding form” as
evidence of understanding the medical care access
process;

•

a comprehensive health assessment, which is a
physician’s examination of the inmate’s current
physical condition and medical history, within one
month of intake;

•

a dental screening within seven calendar days of
intake;

•

a dental exam within one month of intake; and,

PEER Report #507

•

a mental health screening within five calendar days
of intake.

Exhibit 1: Summary of Wexford’s Compliance with Standards for
Routine Medical Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities,
January 1 through May 31, 2007
Meets 85% compliance rate for inmate intake standard?
Inmate Intake

Yes

Inmates’ understanding of access to
medical care




Inmates receive initial health
assessment within one month of
intake




Inmates receive initial dental
screening within 7 calendar days of
intake




Inmates receive dental exam within
one month of intake




Psychiatric/mental health screening
within 5 calendar days of intake




No

Sick Call
Inmates’ sick call triaged within 24
hours




Inmates receive a physician’s visit
within 7 calendar days




2 Year Dental Prophylaxis




Documentation of inmates’ receipt
of dental prophylaxis at least every
2 years
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC’s inmate medical records.

Appendix C, page 79, includes compliance percentages by
parent facility for inmate intake.
Between the review period of January 1, 2007, and May 31,
2007, the contract required Wexford to meet an 85%
compliance rate for all medical care areas addressed in the

PEER Report #507

13

contract. However, beginning July 1, 2007, the contract
requires Wexford to meet a 90% compliance rate for all
medical areas addressed in the contract.
Beginning July 1, 2007,
the contract requires
Wexford to meet a 90%
compliance rate for all
medical areas
addressed in the
contract.

PEER reviewed Wexford’s compliance with applicable
standards of the contract and with national standards for
the medical component of the inmate intake process.
PEER reviewed a sample of 313 inmate medical records
from the review period, distributed as follows: 99 records
from CMCF, 118 records from SMCI, and 96 records from
MSP.

Intake: Inmates’ Understanding of Access to Medical Care
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded an 88% compliance rate for Wexford regarding
instruction of new state inmates on how to obtain access to
medical care. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an
acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the
entire population of inmates would range between 83% and 93%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for instructing all new
state inmates on how to obtain access to medical care at
the parent facilities. At the time of intake, inmates sign
and date a form stating that they have been made aware of
and understand how to obtain necessary medical care
should he or she need it during incarceration.
Wexford met the
required compliance
percentage for
inmates’
understanding of
access to medical care.

Of the 313 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 274 records (88%) included a signed, dated
form indicating the inmate’s understanding of access to
medical care. Based on a 95% confidence level yielded by
the sample, the actual rate would fall between 83% and
93%.
Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford met the required
compliance percentage for inmates’ understanding of
access to medical care. PEER did not locate any
indeterminate records for inmate understanding of access
to medical care. For the purpose of this review, PEER
defined an indeterminate record as a record that did not
contain enough information for PEER to determine either
compliance or noncompliance with contract standards.

Intake: Initial Inmate Health Assessment
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 100% compliance rate for Wexford regarding
new state inmates receiving an initial health assessment within
one month of intake. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and

14

PEER Report #507

an acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the
entire population of inmates would range between 95% and 100%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for ensuring that all new
inmates receive a health assessment within one month of
intake.
Wexford met the
required compliance
percentage for initial
inmate health
assessment.

The National Commission on Correctional Health Care
(NCCHC) defines a health assessment as, “the process
whereby the health status of an individual is evaluated,
including questioning the patient regarding symptoms.”
According to NCCHC standards, a health assessment
includes a review of the screening results, a recording of
vital signs, additional data needed to complete the medical
history, a physical examination, laboratory tests for
communicable diseases, and initiation of immunizations
when appropriate.
PEER found that all 313 inmate medical records sampled
from the review period included documentation that
Wexford had completed an inmate initial health
assessment within one month of intake. PEER did not
locate any indeterminate records for initial inmate health
assessment.

Intake: Inmate Dental Screening within Seven Calendar Days
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 97% compliance rate for Wexford regarding new
state inmates receiving an initial dental screening within seven
calendar days of intake. Based upon a confidence level of 95%
and an acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for
the entire population of inmates would range between 92% and
100%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for conducting a dental
screening of each new inmate within seven calendar days
of intake. The American Correctional Association (ACA)
defines a dental screening as a visual assessment of the
teeth and gums by a dentist or health care staff trained by
a dentist. The National Commission on Correctional
Health Care (NCCHC) defines a dental screening as a visual
observation of the teeth and gums, and notation of any
obvious or gross abnormalities requiring immediate
referral to a dentist.
Of the 313 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 305 records (97%) included documentation
of an inmate initial dental screening within seven calendar
days of intake. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and
an acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate

PEER Report #507

15

for the entire population of inmates would range between
83% and 93%.
Wexford met the
required compliance
percentage for inmate
dental screenings
within seven calendar
days of intake.

Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford met the required
compliance percentage for inmate dental screenings within
seven calendar days of intake. PEER did not locate any
indeterminate records for inmate dental screenings within
seven days.

Intake: Initial Inmate Dental Exam within One Month
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 99.7% compliance rate for Wexford regarding
new state inmates receiving an initial dental exam within one
month of intake. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an
acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the
entire population of inmates would range between 95% and 100%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for conducting a dental
examination of each new inmate within one month of
intake. ACA defines a dental examination as an
examination by a licensed dentist that includes a dental
history, exploration, and charting of teeth, examination of
the oral cavity, and x-rays. NCCHC defines a dental
examination as taking or reviewing the patient’s oral
history, an extraoral head and neck examination, charting
teeth, and examination of hard and soft tissue of the oral
cavity with a mouth mirror, explorer and adequate
illumination.
Wexford met the
required compliance
percentage for
providing an initial
inmate dental exam
within one month of
intake.

Of the 313 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 312 (99.7%) included documentation of an
inmate initial dental exam within one month of intake.
Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 95% and 100%.
Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford met the required
compliance percentage for providing an initial inmate
dental exam within one month of intake. PEER did not
locate any indeterminate records for documentation of an
initial inmate dental exam within one month of intake.

Intake: Initial Inmate Mental Health Screening within Five Calendar
Days
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 98% compliance rate for Wexford regarding new
state inmates receiving an initial mental health screening within

16

PEER Report #507

five days of intake. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an
acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the
entire population of inmates would range between 93% and 100%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for ensuring that all
inmates receive a mental health assessment within five
calendar days of intake.
Wexford met the
required compliance
percentage for
providing an initial
inmate mental health
screening within five
days of intake.

During a mental health assessment Wexford evaluates an
inmate’s mental stability at the time of intake. Wexford
conducts the mental health screening in two parts. The
first part is a psychiatric screening that addresses any
history an inmate might have had regarding psychiatric
care. The second part of the mental health screening is a
suicide potential screening that helps determine the
likelihood of the inmate’s committing suicide.
Of the 313 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 307 (98%) had documentation of an initial
mental health screening within five calendar days of
intake.
Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford met the required
compliance percentage for providing an initial inmate
mental health screening within five days of intake. PEER
did not locate any indeterminate records for initial mental
health screenings within five days of intake.

Sick Call Process for Inmates
During the period of review, Wexford Health Sources did not ensure that
all inmates had timely access to medical care through the sick call
process in accordance with contract requirements and national
correctional standards.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for providing sick call at
CMCF, SMCI, and MSP.
Triage is the sorting
and classifying of
inmates’ health
requests to determine
priority of need and
the proper place for
health care to be
rendered.

PEER Report #507

According to the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care (NCCHC), sick call is the evaluation and
treatment of an ambulatory patient in a clinical setting,
either on- or off-site, by a qualified health care
professional. NCCHC standards dictate that each inmate
have the opportunity to request health care assistance on
a daily basis and should be triaged within twenty-four
hours. NCCHC standards also state that daily means seven
days a week, including holidays. Triage is defined by
NCCHC as the sorting and classifying of inmates’ health
requests to determine priority of need and the proper
place for health care to be rendered.

17

When an inmate at one of the three parent facilities
becomes ill, he or she must first submit a sick call request
form for all non-emergent medical needs into a locked
drop box in the facility’s housing or dining area, the
contents of which are picked up daily by nursing staff. The
inmate’s sick call request form must then be triaged by a
nurse trained in triage within twenty-four hours.
After a nurse triages the sick call request form, the nurse
must determine whether the inmate should see a physician
for a condition that cannot be treated by over-the-counter
medications. If the inmate needs to see a physician for a
condition that exceeds the nurse’s ability to treat the
condition, then the inmate must have a physician visit
within seven calendar days of the original complaint.
At satellite facilities for which Wexford provides medical
care, the staff of each facility fax sick call requests to
Wexford medical staff at the assigned parent facility.
Wexford medical staff then visit the satellite facility once a
week (for female inmates) or once every two weeks (for
male inmates) to respond to sick call requests. If an
inmate at a satellite facility needs to see a physician, the
MDOC staff transports that inmate to the assigned parent
facility. Although such a situation as described is rare,
PEER’s sample of inmate medical records for routine care
could possibly have included inmates from satellite
facilities that were transported to a parent facility for
medical care.
PEER reviewed Wexford’s compliance with the following
components of the sick call process:
•

triage within twenty-four hours of the inmate’s
submitting a sick call request; and,

•

for those inmates who need to see a physician,
examination by a physician within seven days of
the inmate’s submission of a sick call request.

PEER reviewed Wexford’s compliance with applicable
standards of the contract and with national standards for
the sick call process. PEER reviewed a sample of 365
inmate medical records from the review period regarding
the inmate sick call process.

Sick Call: Triage within Twenty-Four Hours
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 33% compliance rate for Wexford’s documenting
that inmates’ sick call requests were triaged within twenty-four
hours. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable

18

PEER Report #507

error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 28% and 38%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, “a licensed nurse trained in triage will conduct
sick call triage each day at times that are coordinated with
Facility staff.” Both Wexford policy and procedure and the
medical services contract state that sick call requests will
be triaged within twenty-four hours.
Wexford did not meet
the required
compliance percentage
for triage of sick call
requests within
twenty-four hours of
when sick call forms
are gathered.

Of the 365 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 122 (33%) contained documentation that
inmates’ sick call request forms had the triage dates
stamped or written on by Wexford staff within twenty-four
hours of the dates of submission. Of the remaining
inmate records in the sample, 214 (59%) did not comply
with the contract and national standards and 29 inmate
medical records (8%) were indeterminate. PEER considered
records to be indeterminate in cases in which inmates had
re-entered the system and their old medical records did
not follow, sick call forms were missing dates, or medical
records were missing. Appendix D, page 80, contains a
facility-by-facility breakdown of the twenty-four-hour
triage compliance percentages.
Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 28% and 38%.
Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford did not meet the
required compliance percentage for triage of sick call
requests within twenty-four hours of when sick call forms
are gathered.

Wexford may be
delaying access to
medical attention to
those inmates who are
determined through
triage to need a
physician’s care.

Even if PEER considered the 8% of indeterminate medical
records as compliant, Wexford still would only have a 41%
compliance rate. Including the indeterminate medical
records, based on a 95% confidence level yielded by the
sample, the actual rate would fall between 36% and 46%.
In addition to violating the terms of the contract, by not
ensuring that inmates’ sick call requests are triaged within
twenty-four hours, Wexford may be delaying access to
medical attention to those inmates who are determined
through triage to need a physician’s care.

Wexford’s practices for documenting triage of an inmate sick call
request do not ensure that medical assessment of the request has
actually occurred and that it occurred within the time frame
required by the contract.
In order for Wexford, MDOC, or a third party such as PEER
to determine whether Wexford is complying with

PEER Report #507

19

requirements of the contract for triage of inmate sick call
requests within twenty-four hours, Wexford staff must
document that they performed triage on the sick call
request within the required time frame.
Regarding the procedure for receiving sick call forms and
documenting triage, MDOC’s contract with Wexford states:
Non-emergent health care (sick call) requests
shall be triaged within twenty-four (24)
hours. . . .
If the sick call request (SCR) form is datestamped (which is required), that date is
deemed the official triage date. If the SCR
form is not date-stamped, then the date the
inmate originated the complaint (i.e., the
date he/she writes on the SCR form) is the
date used and is compared to the date
signed at the bottom of the SCR form as the
reference date the inmate was seen by the
healthcare staff.
The contract allows the use of the date the inmate writes
on the sick call form (which, of course, is subject to error)
as the baseline from which to measure the twenty-fourhour window for triage. The contract states that the date
stamped on the request is to be the date of triage, but
does not specify that a nurse or person in any specified
position of authority is to conduct the triage prior to
stamping the form. The contract also does not require
that a nurse or person in any specified position of
authority sign the form attesting that he or she has triaged
the request. The only confirmation that triage has
occurred is that if a member of Wexford’s nursing staff
actually refers the inmate to a physician’s care, a note is
made in another portion of the patient’s medical record.
The current procedure
does not hold any
individual accountable
for ensuring that sick
call triage is an
analytical process that
actually occurs and
that it occurs within
the required time
frame.

20

Further, the terms of the contract allow those sick call
requests without the date stamp indicating triage to use
the date written on the form by the inmate as the date of
triage. When PEER inquired, Wexford staff noted that they
do not have formal, written policies and procedures for
sick call triage other than the requirements of the contract
and the ACA and NCCHC standards.
The above-described procedure does not provide primary
evidence of compliance with the twenty-four hour triage
requirement of the contract. A date stamped on the sick
call request form does not necessarily indicate that triage
has actually occurred because the form does not require a
signature and no written policy or procedure assigns
responsibility to a specified position of authority. Thus no
individual is held accountable for ensuring that triage is an

PEER Report #507

analytical process that actually occurs and that it occurs
within the required time frame. Also, the contract allows
those forms without stamped dates to default to the date
of the request as the “date used” for triage.
Because Wexford staff
are inconsistent in
their methods of
recording dates of
triage at the three
facilities, when
inmates or staff
transfer between
facilities, it may be
difficult to determine
what occurred when
during the triage
process.

Compounding this problem is the fact that Wexford staff
are inconsistent in their methods of recording dates of
triage at the three facilities. Staff at CMCF write dates on
some sick call forms and date-stamp some forms. SMCI
staff write the date of triage on all the sick call forms, and
MSP staff date-stamp the date of receipt of the sick call
form, then write the date of triage on the sick call form.
(MSP’s practice does not comply with the contract
language.) Thus, when inmates or staff transfer between
facilities, it may be difficult to determine what occurred
when during the triage process. Also, as noted in the
previous subsection, PEER had to classify 8% of the inmate
sick call requests within the sample of inmate records as
indeterminate records because sick call forms were
missing the dates or the forms themselves were missing.
This condition has occurred because the contract does not
specify a procedure for sick call triage that can be audited.
The contract language does not require attestation or
confirmation that triage has occurred. Also, Wexford has
not implemented quality assurance methods to assure
MDOC that triage is actually taking place and within the
required time frame by a licensed nurse trained in triage.
Wexford’s procedures for sick call triage consist only of
copies of the ACA and NCCHC standards.
Because of the above-noted problems, it would be difficult
for Wexford, MDOC, or a third party such as PEER to
determine whether Wexford is complying with
requirements of the contract for triage of inmate sick call
requests within twenty-four hours. Also, inmates needing
a physician’s care might be delayed in receiving that care.

Unlike the other two parent facilities, for those inmate sick call
requests submitted on Fridays or Saturdays, Wexford staff at
CMCF do not comply with the contract requirement for daily triage
of inmates’ sick call requests within twenty-four hours.

At CMCF, Wexford
managers have not
required those nursing
staff who are trained
in triage to be present
and perform this
function seven days a
week.

PEER Report #507

As noted previously, according to MDOC’s medical services
contract with Wexford, “a licensed nurse trained in triage
will conduct sick call triage each day at times that are
coordinated with Facility staff.” Both Wexford policy and
procedure and the medical services contract state that sick
call requests will be triaged within twenty-four hours.
According to nursing staff at South Mississippi
Correctional Institution and Mississippi State Penitentiary,

21

triage is conducted daily, including weekends. However,
according to nursing staff at Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility, triage of sick call requests is
conducted five days a week; CMCF does not triage on the
weekends. Wexford staff collect sick call requests from
inmates seven days a week, but sick call requests
submitted on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday are not triaged
until Monday.
Wexford may be
delaying access to
medical attention to
those CMCF inmates
who are determined
through triage to need
a physician’s care.

This condition has occurred because Wexford managers
have not required those nursing staff who are trained in
triage to be present and perform this function seven days
a week.
In addition to violating the terms of the contract, because
Wexford does not ensure that inmates’ sick call requests
are triaged within twenty-four hours, Wexford may be
delaying access to medical attention to those inmates who
are determined through triage to need a physician’s care.

Sick Call: Physician Visit within Seven Days
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 53% compliance rate for Wexford’s ensuring that
inmates who are determined through triage to need a physician’s
or mid-level practitioner’s care receive such care within seven
calendar days of submitting the sick call request. Based upon a
confidence level of 95% and an acceptable error rate of 5%, the
actual compliance rate for the entire population of inmates would
range between 48% and 58%.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, Wexford is responsible for assuring that those
inmates who are determined through triage to need a
physician’s care receive such care within seven days. The
medical services contract states:
. . .when necessary, a referral shall be made
for the inmate to be evaluated by the
physician or mid-level practitioner within
seven (7) calendar days of the original
compliant.
Of the 365 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 192 (53%) contained documentation of
inmates’ receiving a physician’s visit within seven calendar
days of the original sick call request. Of the remaining
inmate medical records in the sample, 116 (32%) did not
comply with contract standards and 57 (15%) inmate
medical records were indeterminate. PEER considered
records to be indeterminate in cases in which inmates’ sick
call request forms had a signature but no date of the
physician’s visit (i. e., PEER could not determine whether

22

PEER Report #507

these inmates actually received a physician visit within the
seven-calendar-day window). See Appendix E, page 81, for
a facility-by-facility breakdown of the seven-day physician
visit compliance percentages.
Wexford did not meet
the required
compliance percentage
for assuring that those
inmates who are
determined through
triage to need a
physician’s care
receive such care
within seven days.

Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 48% and 58%.
Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford did not meet the
required compliance percentage for assuring that those
inmates who are determined through triage to need a
physician’s care receive such care within seven days.
Even if PEER considered the 15% of indeterminate medical
records as compliant, Wexford still would only have a 68%
compliance rate. Including the indeterminate medical
records, based on a 95% confidence level yielded by the
sample, the actual rate would fall between 63% and 73%.
PEER notes that MDOC’s contract with Wexford includes a
clause stating that beginning July 1, 2007, Wexford must
meet at least a 90% compliance rate for all medical areas
addressed in the medical services contract.

Wexford’s delays may
be allowing some
inmates’ medical
conditions to decline
and create the need for
specialty care.

One cause for this condition could be Wexford’s rate of at
least 59% noncompliance with the requirement for triage
of inmates’ sick call request within twenty-four hours (see
previous subsection).
In addition to violating the terms of the contract, by not
assuring that those inmates who are determined through
triage to need a physician’s care receive such care within
seven calendar days, Wexford’s delays may be allowing
some inmates’ medical conditions to decline and create
the need for specialty care.

Dental Prophylaxis for Inmates Every Two Years
During the period of review, Wexford Health Sources did not document
that all inmates had a dental prophylaxis every two years in accordance
with contract requirements.
In addition to new inmates’ initial dental screenings and
dental examinations previously discussed, MDOC’s
medical services contract with Wexford makes Wexford
responsible for providing all inmates with a routine dental
prophylaxis (i.e., a dental cleaning intended to remove
plaque, calculus, and stains in order to help prevent dental
disease) no less than once every two years. The contract
requires Wexford to maintain a record of each inmate’s
dental care.

PEER Report #507

23

To determine Wexford’s rate of compliance with this
contract requirement, PEER reviewed a sample of 187
inmate dental records within the medical records of
inmates who had entered the system between January 1,
2005, and May 31, 2005, who are still in the system and
should have received a two-year dental prophylaxis
between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007.

For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmate dental
records yielded a 41% compliance rate for Wexford’s ensuring of
this two-year dental prophylaxis. Based upon a confidence level of
95% and an acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate
for receiving a two-year dental prophylaxis for the entire
population of inmates would range between 36% and 46%.
PEER’s initial review of the sample of 187 inmate dental
records for documentation of the two-year dental
prophylaxis yielded an extremely low compliance rate (40
records, or 21%) because very few records contained a
notation evidencing a two-year dental prophylaxis. In
subsequent interviews with the MDOC Dental Director and
several dentists who provided dental care at the three
parent facilities, PEER was told that, in practice, if a dentist
provided any type of dental care to an inmate on a visit
(e.g., filling a cavity), that the dentist also performed a
prophylaxis at the same visit and considered it to fulfill
the requirement for the two-year prophylaxis. However,
the Dental Director and dentists acknowledged that
dentists did not consistently note this prophylaxis in the
inmate’s dental record.
Wexford did not meet
the required
compliance percentage
for inmates receiving a
dental prophylaxis at
least once every two
years.

Although the failure to note performing a prophylactic
procedure in the dental records would be considered a
weakness in documentation in the practice of a health care
profession, PEER gave credit for the two-year visits in these
cases, which increased the number of compliant records to
76 (41%). Of the remaining dental records in the sample,
97 (52%) did not comply with contract standards and 14
dental records (7%) were indeterminate. PEER considered
records to be indeterminate in cases in which inmates’
initial dental prophylaxis date was missing in the dental
records. (PEER could not determine whether these inmates
actually received a dental prophylaxis visit within the twoyear window.) Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an
acceptable error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for
receiving a two-year dental prophylaxis for the entire
population of inmates would range between 36% and 46%.
See Appendix F, page 82, for a facility-by-facility
breakdown of the two-year dental prophylaxis visit
compliance percentages.

24

PEER Report #507

Even if PEER considered the 7% of indeterminate dental
records as compliant, Wexford still would only be at a 48%
compliance rate. Including the indeterminate dental
records, based on a 95% confidence level and an acceptable
error rate of 5%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates for compliance with the two-year
prophylaxis requirement would fall between 43% and 53%,
at best.
By not ensuring that
inmates receive a
dental prophylaxis at
least once every two
years, Wexford is
delaying inmate access
to preventive dental
care, which could
result in more
advanced problems
such as extreme tooth
decay or gum disease.

Because MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires a
compliance rate of at least 85%, Wexford did not meet the
required compliance percentage for inmates receiving a
dental prophylaxis at least once every two years. PEER
notes that MDOC’s contract with Wexford includes a clause
stating that beginning July 1, 2007, Wexford must meet at
least a 90% compliance rate for all medical areas
addressed in the medical services contract.
In addition to violating the terms of the contract, by not
ensuring that inmates receive a dental prophylaxis at least
once every two years, Wexford is delaying inmate access to
preventive dental care, which could result in more
advanced problems such as extreme tooth decay or gum
disease. Such conditions could result in the need to see a
specialist such as an oral surgeon and ultimately cost the
state more money for specialty care.

Because of dentists’ inconsistent documentation of two-year prophylaxis
in inmates’ dental records, MDOC and Wexford cannot ensure that
inmates receive the preventive dental care required by the contract.
As noted above, the MDOC Dental Director and dentists
practicing at the three parent correctional facilities stated
that if an inmate received any type of dental care, that the
dentist also performed a prophylaxis at the same visit.
Wexford considered these visits to fulfill the requirement
for the inmate’s two-year prophylaxis. However, the
Dental Director and dentists acknowledged that dentists
did not consistently note this prophylaxis in the inmate’s
dental record.
Should a facility
experience turnover in
dental staff or should
an inmate transfer to
another facility, failure
to document the twoyear dental
prophylaxis could
disrupt the continuity
of dental care for that
inmate.

PEER Report #507

Because the dentists do not consistently document that
inmates receiving other forms of dental care also receive
their two-year prophylaxis at the same visit, Wexford
cannot prove to MDOC that this service is being rendered
consistently. Should a facility experience turnover in
dental staff or should an inmate transfer to another
facility, the failure to document the two-year dental
prophylaxis could disrupt the continuity of dental care for
that inmate.

25

Chronic Medical Care for Inmates
MDOC’s current contract with Wexford does not address the issue of chronic
care. Thus MDOC cannot ensure that Wexford develops and implements a
system of quality chronic medical care for the state’s inmates.

The American
Correctional
Association defines
chronic care as health
care provided over a
long period to those
patients who suffer
from long-term health
conditions or illnesses.

The American Correctional Association defines chronic
care as health care provided over a long period to those
patients who suffer from long-term health conditions or
illnesses. NCCHC defines a chronic illness as a condition
that affects an individual’s well being for an extended
interval, usually at least six months, and generally is not
curable, but can be managed to provide optimum
functioning within any limitations the condition imposes
on the individual. NCCHC states, “A proactive [chronic
care] program exists that provides care for special needs
patients who require close medical supervision or
multidisciplinary care.”
According to MDOC policy, Wexford is to hold ongoing
chronic care clinics for asthma, diabetes, hypertension,
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), seizures, and
tuberculosis. MDOC requires that the vendor schedule
inmates for the appropriate chronic care clinic when a
chronic disease process is identified.

By failing to include in
the contract with
Wexford formal
contract standards,
requirements, and a
quality assurance plan
for chronic care, MDOC
cannot monitor
Wexford’s performance
in providing quality
chronic care to ensure
that inmates receive
quality health care for
chronic care
conditions.

However, MDOC does not address the chronic care area
within the medical services contract. Specifically, MDOC
does not spell out exactly how chronic care clinics are to
be conducted, such as what type of documentation is to be
kept within the medical record for each chronic care clinic
visit, what type of information must be submitted to
MDOC for review, how that information will be sent and
within what time frames, how often MDOC requires the
contractor to re-evaluate each chronic care patient by
condition, and what type of basic treatment plans each
chronic care condition must include.
By failing to include in the contract with Wexford formal
contract standards, requirements, and a quality assurance
plan for chronic care, MDOC cannot monitor Wexford’s
performance in providing quality chronic care to ensure
that inmates receive quality health care for chronic care
conditions.
Appendix G, page 83, shows the overall compliance rates
for Wexford for chronic care for all three parent facilities
combined.

26

PEER Report #507

PEER’s Sample of Inmate Medical Records for Chronic Care
During the period of review, Wexford Health Sources did not comply with
its own policies and procedures regarding timely access to chronic care
and proper documentation of all chronic care follow-up referrals.
However, Wexford did comply with the documentation of a medication
treatment plan requirement.

Since MDOC’s medical
services contract with
Wexford does not
address chronic care,
PEER used Wexford’s
policies and
procedures, MDOC’s
policies and
procedures, and
national standards as
the compliance
standards for this
portion of the review.

According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford, MDOC conducts random quarterly compliance
audits of inmates’ intake, sick call, dental, and mental
health care administered by Wexford. However, since
MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford does not
address chronic care, MDOC does not audit chronic care
for the same 85% compliance rate as the other medical
areas and does not assess liquidated damages regarding
chronic care. Therefore, in assessing Wexford’s
performance in providing chronic care, PEER used
Wexford’s policies and procedures, MDOC’s policies and
procedures, and national standards as the compliance
standards.
PEER assessed Wexford’s compliance with providing timely
access to quality chronic care for state inmates in the
correctional system for the following areas:
•

chronic care visit at least every six months (see
explanation of this standard in the following
subsection);

•

notation in the medical records of scheduling a
follow-up chronic care visit in six months; and,

•

a medication treatment plan for each inmate under
chronic care.

In reviewing chronic care, PEER sampled a combined total
of 254 inmate medical records from the three parent
correctional facilities. See page 3 for a discussion of the
level of precision in the sample for chronic care.
Exhibit 2, page 28, summarizes Wexford’s performance
regarding chronic care at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP. The
following sections include discussions of each of the
chronic care issues reviewed.

PEER Report #507

27

Exhibit 2: Summary of Wexford’s Performance Regarding Chronic
Medical Care at the Three Parent Correctional Facilities, January 1
through May 31, 2007
Chronic Care 6 Month Visit
Inmates receive a chronic care
visit at least every 6 months

Compliance rates*
59%

Chronic Care Physician
Referral Notation
Physicians notate a referral for a
chronic care follow-up visit
within 6 months of the inmates’
previous chronic care visit

76%

Chronic Care Medication
Treatment Plan
Physicians develop and notate a
medication treatment plan for
chronic care inmates

85%

*MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford did not address chronic medical care, although Wexford does
provide chronic care services to the three parent correctional facilities.
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC’s inmate medical records.

Chronic Care: Physician’s Visit At Least Every Six Months
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 59% compliance rate 1 for Wexford’s ensuring
that state inmates received a chronic care physician’s visit at least
once every six months. Based upon a confidence level of 95% and
an acceptable error rate of 6%, the actual compliance rate for the
entire population of inmates would range between 53% and 65%.
As stated previously, MDOC’s medical services contract
with Wexford does not establish any chronic care
standards or requirements. Wexford requires in its own
policies and procedures for the management of chronic
care that the physician conduct an assessment every

1

As noted on page 26, MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford did not address chronic
medical care, although Wexford does provide chronic care services to the three parent correctional
facilities.

28

PEER Report #507

ninety days to determine the need for continued chronic
care services. MDOC requires in its policies and
procedures that inmates with chronic conditions be seen
at least annually. Thus PEER sampled inmates’ medical
records to assess whether inmates were seen by a
physician for chronic care every six months, the midpoint
between Wexford’s requirement of every ninety days (in its
own policies and procedures) and MDOC’s policy of an
annual physician’s visit.
Failure to monitor
inmates’ chronic health
conditions
appropriately could
subject the state to
increased medical
expenses due to the
need for specialty care
that might otherwise
have been unnecessary
if the inmates had
been treated in a
timely manner.

Of the 254 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 150 (59%) included documentation of the
inmate’s receiving a chronic care visit at least once every
six months. Of the remaining records in the sample, 49
(19%) did not fall within the six-month time frame for reevaluating an inmate’s chronic medical condition and 55
records (22%) were indeterminate.
PEER classified records as indeterminate if they did not
contain sufficient information for PEER to determine
compliance or noncompliance. Of the 55 records that
PEER classified as indeterminate for the six-month chronic
care visits, 50 were missing all chronic care information;
therefore, PEER could not determine whether these
inmates actually received chronic care, although the
inmates’ names appear on the chronic care logs as being
seen. These 5 records should not have been a part of
PEER’s sample, but due to Wexford’s recording errors,
these records were put on the chronic care logs instead of
the mental health logs, so PEER considered the records
indeterminate. See Appendix H, page 84, for a facility-byfacility breakdown of the percentages for providing
inmates with a chronic care visit at least every six months.
Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 6%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 53% and 65%.
Even if PEER considered the 22% of indeterminate medical
records as compliant, Wexford would have only 81%
compliance. Including the indeterminate records, based
on a 95% confidence level yielded by the sample, the actual
compliance rate would fall between 75% and 87%.
By not ensuring that inmates receive a chronic care visit at
least once every six months, Wexford is not only violating
its own timeliness standards for chronic care, but it is
failing to ensure the continuity of medical care needed to
help prevent inmates’ chronic conditions from becoming
worse. Failure to monitor chronic health conditions
appropriately could subject the state to increased medical
expenses due to the need for specialty care that might
otherwise have been unnecessary if the inmates had been
treated in a timely manner.

PEER Report #507

29

Chronic Care: Physician Referral for Six-Month Follow-up Visits
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded a 76% compliance rate 2 for documentation of a
Wexford physician referring inmates for follow-up visits for
chronic care at least once every six months. Based upon a
confidence level of 95% and an acceptable error rate of 6%, the
actual compliance rate for the entire population of inmates would
range between 70% and 82%.
As stated previously, MDOC’s medical services contract
with Wexford does not establish any chronic care
standards or requirements. PEER sampled inmates’
medical records to assess whether inmates under chronic
medical care were scheduled for six-month follow-up visits
because six months is the midpoint between Wexford’s
requirement of a chronic care visit every ninety days (in its
own policies and procedures) and MDOC’s policy of an
annual physician’s visit.
Of the 254 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 193 (76%) included documentation of a
physician’s chronic care referral at least within six months
of the last scheduled chronic care visit. Of the remaining
records in the sample, 44 (17%) did not contain
documentation that a physician had referred the inmate
for a chronic care follow-up visit within six months of the
last scheduled chronic care visit and 17 records (7%) were
indeterminate.
By not ensuring that
all inmates are being
properly referred for
chronic care follow-up
visits in a timely
manner, Wexford is
failing to ensure
continuity of care
should an inmate
transfer from one
facility to another.

PEER classified records as indeterminate if they did not
contain sufficient information for PEER to determine
compliance or noncompliance. Of the 17 records that
PEER classified as indeterminate for scheduling of the sixmonth follow-up visits for chronic care, 12 were missing
chronic care information and PEER could not determine
whether a physician had referred the inmate for a chronic
care follow-up visit within at least six months of the last
scheduled chronic care visit. These 5 records should not
have been a part of PEER’s sample, but due to Wexford’s
recording errors, these records were put on the chronic
care logs instead of the mental health logs, so PEER
considered the records to be indeterminate. Appendix I,
page 85, contains for a facility-by-facility breakdown of the
percentages for physician referral for chronic care at least
within six months of the last scheduled chronic care visit.

2

As noted on page 26, MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford did not address chronic
medical care, although Wexford does provide chronic care services to the three parent correctional
facilities.

30

PEER Report #507

Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 6%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 70% and 82%.
Even if PEER considered the 7% indeterminate medical
records as compliant, Wexford would have an 83%
compliance rate. Including the determinate records, based
on a 95% confidence level yielded by the sample, the actual
compliance rate would fall between 77% and 89%.
By not ensuring that all inmates are being properly
referred for chronic care follow-up visits in a timely
manner, Wexford is failing to ensure continuity of care
should an inmate transfer from one facility to another.
The physician at the next facility should be able to open
the chronic care file and determine when the inmate’s last
chronic care visit was scheduled and when the next
chronic care scheduled visit is needed. Otherwise, the
possibility exists that inmates could fail to get a follow-up
visit because the physician failed to schedule a referral
and document such in the medical records.

Chronic Care: Treatment Plans
For the period reviewed, a random sample of inmates’ medical
records yielded an 85% compliance rate 3 for Wexford’s
documentation of prescribing a medication treatment plan for
each inmate under chronic care. Based upon a confidence level of
95% and an acceptable error rate of 6%, the actual compliance rate
for the entire population of inmates would range between 79%
and 91%.
As noted previously, MDOC’S medical services contract
with Wexford does not establish any chronic care
standards and requirements. However, ACA and NCCHC
standards require that inmates under chronic medical care
have a treatment plan.
ACA defines treatment plan as a series of written
statements that specify the particular course of therapy
and the roles of medical and non-medical personnel in
carrying it out and states: “A written treatment plan is
required for offenders requiring close medical supervision,
including chronic and convalescent care.”

3

As noted on page 26, MDOC’s medical services contract with Wexford did not address chronic
medical care, although Wexford does provide chronic care services to the three parent correctional
facilities.

PEER Report #507

31

NCCHC standards state:
The treatment plan includes at a minimum:
•

The frequency of the follow-up for
medical evaluations and adjustment of
treatment modality;

•

The type and frequency of diagnostic
testing and therapeutic regimes; and

•

When appropriate, instructions about
diet,
exercise,
adaptation
to
the
correctional
environment,
and
medication.

Because the management of each chronic care condition
differs to some extent, PEER focused on the two most
common treatment areas mentioned in the national
standards for inmates diagnosed with chronic conditions.
The first area was frequency of follow-up visits, which is
addressed on page 30. The second area was the
administration of medications used to keep chronic
conditions under control.
Of the 254 inmate medical records sampled from the
review period, 217 (85%) included documentation of a
physician-developed medication treatment plan. Of the
remaining records in the sample, 22 (9%) did not include
such documentation and 15 records (6%) were
indeterminate.
Ensuring that all
chronic care inmates
have a medication
treatment plan for
each chronic condition
helps in keeping
chronic medical
conditions controlled
and could reduce the
number of specialty
care visits.

PEER classified records as indeterminate if they did not
contain sufficient information to be reviewed. Of the 15
records that PEER classified as indeterminate for the
medication treatment plans, 10 were missing chronic care
information and PEER could not determine whether a
medication treatment plan had been developed. The other
5 records should not have been a part of PEER’s sample,
but due to Wexford’s recording errors, these records were
put on the chronic care logs instead of the mental health
logs, so PEER considered the records to be indeterminate.
Appendix J, page 86, contains a facility-by-facility
breakdown of the percentages for documentation of
physicians developing a medication treatment plan for
inmates with chronic conditions.
Based upon a confidence level of 95% and an acceptable
error rate of 6%, the actual compliance rate for the entire
population of inmates would range between 79% and 91%.
If including the 6% of indeterminate records as compliant,
based on a 95% confidence level yielded by the sample, the
actual compliance rate would fall between 85% and 97%.

32

PEER Report #507

Ensuring that all chronic care inmates have a medication
treatment plan for each chronic condition helps in keeping
chronic medical conditions controlled and could reduce
the number of specialty care visits.

Mental Health Care for Inmates
No Segregation of Mental Health Records
MDOC does not require that Wexford keep mental health records
organized separately from inmates’ other medical records, a condition
that could affect continuity of care.
MDOC policy states, “It is the policy of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC) that the Medical
Provider maintains accurate and timely medical records
that reflect the provisions of care to inmate patients.”
For the review period, mental health records maintained
by Wexford were not auditable because they were mixed
together with regular medical records at CMCF, SMCI, and
MSP, which made it difficult to analyze contract
compliance with any level of confidence. Due to the
degree of movement of inmates from one facility to
another, PEER could not determine whether this
recordkeeping problem is present at all three parent
correctional facilities.
Critical mental health
information may be
overlooked by medical
personnel due to their
inability to locate such
information within the
medical records.

According to MDOC’s Mississippi State Prison Approved
Chart Order outline, all mental health records should be
kept with those for chronic care because mental health is a
specific area of chronic care. However, PEER identified
during the medical records audit that Wexford staff do not
consistently file mental health records with those for
chronic care. Instead, mental health records were mixed
with the regular medical records in the progress notes
section of the medical records and psychiatric notes were
mixed with other physician’s orders.
As a result, PEER could not determine which records were
mental health and which were medical. Neither MDOC nor
Wexford can audit the mental health records with any level
of confidence for contract compliance when records are
not uniformly kept in one area.
As an example of the problems mixed medical records can
create, PEER requested mental health professionals at
CMCF and SMCI to search inmate medical records for
mental health referral forms, medications prescribed to
inmates, and inmates’ next mental health appointment
within the medical records. The mental health
professionals at CMCF and SMCI had trouble finding and

PEER Report #507

33

identifying the mental health information PEER requested
from the medical records.
By MDOC not requiring Wexford to maintain a separate
mental health section within the regular medical records,
neither MDOC nor Wexford can ensure continuity of
mental health care from one facility to the next. Critical
mental health information may be overlooked by medical
personnel due to their inability to locate such information
within the medical records. As a result, an inmate may not
receive the proper medical care.

Lack of System-Wide Management of Some Chronic and Mental
Health Care Documents
For chronic and mental health care, MDOC has not required Wexford to
develop an effective system-wide method of managing inmates’
appointments or maintaining uniform log sheets. As a result, MDOC
cannot assure continuity of care.
Because MDOC may transfer inmates between facilities, or
inmates may leave and re-enter the correctional system,
consistency among facilities is important in maintaining
some of the medical care management information and
documents for inmates. This is particularly important for
inmates under chronic or mental health care, as follow-up
and continuity of care are especially significant factors in
these inmates’ overall health.
PEER found problems in the managing of appointments for
inmates under chronic or mental health care. Also,
Wexford staff at the three parent facilities do not maintain
uniform log sheets for chronic and mental health care.

No System-Wide Method of Managing Inmates’ Chronic and Mental
Health Care Appointments
MDOC has not required Wexford to develop an effective system-wide
method of managing the appointments of inmates under chronic or
mental health care. As a result, MDOC cannot assure continuity of care
for inmates under chronic or mental health care, especially if inmates
transfer between facilities.
ACA standards state, “Continuity of care is required from
admission to transfer or discharge from the facility,
including referral to community based providers, when
indicated.” NCCHC standards state, “The facility ensures
that inmates receive diagnostic and other health services
ordered by clinicians.”
MDOC has not required in contract that Wexford
implement a formal system for tracking inmates’ chronic

34

PEER Report #507

care physician visits and mental health psychiatric visits to
ensure continuity of care from one facility to another.
Wexford currently uses a process for keeping records of
chronic care and mental health appointments that varies
between the facilities.
At both CMCF and MSP, Wexford staff record chronic care
and mental health appointment dates in a spreadsheet and
sort them to determine which inmates are due to see the
chronic care physician or the mental health professional
on a specific day.
Because MDOC has not
required Wexford to
implement an effective
method of managing
appointments for
chronic or mental
health care, the
potential exists that
inmates might not be
scheduled for followup, which is an
important component
of chronic or mental
health care.

At SMCI, Wexford staff keep chronic care appointments on
a paper calendar log to determine which inmates need to
see the chronic care physician on a specific date. Also,
SMCI uses adhesive notes in the medical record to show
the date of the next scheduled chronic care visit. Wexford
staff put mental health appointments on a calendar to
determine when to schedule psychiatric follow-up
appointments.
PEER believes that a method such as a formal management
information system for managing appointments and
tracking inmates through chronic and mental health care
could help assure continuity of care and could most likely
be accomplished with MDOC’s existing resources.
Because MDOC has not required Wexford to implement an
effective method of managing appointments for chronic or
mental health care, the potential exists that inmates might
not be scheduled for follow-up, which is an important
component of chronic or mental health care, and Wexford
cannot ensure continuity of care for inmates transferred
between facilities.

No System-Wide Method of Keeping Chronic and Mental Health Care
Logs
MDOC has not required Wexford to ensure continuity of care by
maintaining uniform log sheets for all chronic care and mental
health inmate medical records.
According to MDOC policy, Wexford must keep log sheets
on-site for all health care performed at the facility.
However, Wexford does not use uniform log sheets at all
three parent facilities that tracks the same information for
chronic care and mental health care.
Wexford staff at the facilities keep logs for chronic care
and mental health care, with the exception of SMCI.
Wexford staff at SMCI did not have any mental health logs
for the period of the review.

PEER Report #507

35

By not maintaining uniform log sheets, Wexford cannot
ensure continuity of care from one facility to another.
Inmates are frequently transferred from one facility to
another and should be ensured of having the same level of
care at all parent facilities. Since the log sheets represent
the source data of all inmate medical visits into a clinic,
the log sheets should be uniform and record the same
medical information. This process would also allow MDOC
to audit the log sheets for continuity of care from one
facility to the next.

36

PEER Report #507

Wexford’s and MDOC’s Provision of Specialty
Medical Care
Inmates’ medical records from January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007, do not
contain documentation that MDOC and its contractor Wexford provided timely
specialty medical care to all state inmates needing such care.
According to MDOC’s medical services contract with
Wexford Health Sources, Wexford and MDOC share
responsibility for providing inmates with access to
specialty medical care. As of July 1, 2006, Wexford is
responsible for providing the following specialty care:
optometry, radiology, dialysis, audiology, and care for
sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis.
MDOC is financially responsible for all other specialty care
services for state inmates off site and is responsible for
oversight of the utilization review process for specialty
care for all state inmates.
Wexford and MDOC
share responsibility
for providing inmates
with access to
specialty medical care.

MDOC created the Office of Specialty Care within the
Office of Medical Compliance in response to its increased
responsibility for specialty medical care for inmates. The
Office of Specialty Care employs licensed practical nurses
(LPNs) as Specialty Care Coordinators (SCCs). These SCCs
are responsible for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating
consult requests from Wexford physicians. SCCs are also
responsible for requesting additional information from
Wexford physicians, discussing consult requests with the
Chief Medical Officer or designee (i. e., a physician
consultant), and scheduling all appointments and
surgeries.
PEER reviewed MDOC’s and Wexford’s implementation of
their respective responsibilities for inmates’ specialty
medical care from January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007.
PEER concluded that MDOC and Wexford did not
document timeliness of specialty care for all inmates
during that period because:

PEER Report #507

•

neither Wexford nor MDOC has established written
timeliness standards for monitoring consult
requests; and,

•

neither Wexford nor MDOC has implemented an
effective method of tracking inmates through the
specialty care process.

37

No Written Timeliness Standards for Monitoring the Status of Inmates’ Specialty
Care Cases
Process for Specialty Medical Care
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, the contractor is responsible
for requesting specialty medical care consults for inmates.
MDOC is
responsible for reviewing and evaluating these consult requests and
scheduling appointments with specialists.
In the case of an inmate who needs specialty medical care,
the inmate submits a sick call request, through triage is
referred to a health care professional (i. e., a physician,
nurse practitioner, or dentist) employed by Wexford at a
parent correctional facility, then is seen by that health care
professional. If the health care professional at the parent
facility determines that the inmate’s condition warrants
review by a specialist (such as a cardiologist or
ophthalmologist), the health care professional completes a
specialty care consult form for the inmate.
Wexford’s medical director or dental director signs the
consult for approval and submits the form by fax to
MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care in Jackson. As noted
previously, MDOC’s Specialty Care Coordinators receive
and review the consult requests and request any
additional medical information needed. If no further
information is needed, the SCCs discuss the consult
requests with the Chief Medical Officer or designee,
according to MDOC policy. Then, MDOC schedules the
appointment for the inmate with a timeframe based upon
the urgency of the medical condition. Wexford writes
“urgent” on consult requests for inmates that need
immediate attention. Otherwise, MDOC determines the
urgency of the condition. MDOC schedules follow-up
appointments or surgeries as needed.
Exhibit 3, page 39, depicts the specialty care process from
the point of the consult request to the scheduling of the
appointment for specialty care.

PEER’s Sample of Records Regarding the Specialty Care Process
During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s sample, MDOC
scheduled 39 percent of appointments for specialty care within thirty days
of Wexford’s completion of the consult request.
To determine whether inmates at MDOC facilities received
timely specialty medical care during the period of review,

38

PEER Report #507

PEER sampled 2224 medical records at MDOC headquarters
in Jackson for inmates who received some type of
specialty care between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007.

Results of PEER’s Sample
As shown in Exhibit 4 on page 41, MDOC’s Office of
Specialty Care scheduled:
•

21 percent of appointments within 14 days of the
consult being completed;

•

39 percent of appointments within 30 days of the
consult being completed;

•

63 percent of appointments within 60 days of the
consult being completed; and,

•

80 percent of appointments within 90 days of the
consult being completed.

The remaining 20 percent of appointments not scheduled
within 90 days of the consult being completed represent
appointments for 41 inmates, for which 91 to 212 days
elapsed before the inmate saw a specialist.
For the 20 percent of
appointments not
scheduled within 90
days of the consult
being completed, from
91 to 212 days elapsed
before the inmate saw
a specialist.

As an example, a September 2006 surgery consult for an
inmate with a large, painful hernia was not scheduled for
an appointment until February 2007 (nearly five months
after the consult request) and the inmate subsequently
had surgery in April 2007.
PEER notes that these numbers represent all phases within
the specialty care process (except for follow-up
appointments or surgeries after the initial visit with a
specialist). Subsequent discussions relate to individual
phases within the specialty care process.

During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s sample, Wexford
submitted 44 percent of consult requests to MDOC for approval within
one day of completion.
As shown in Exhibit 5 on page 42, Wexford submitted:
•

23 percent of consult requests on the same day of
completion;

4

The 222 inmate medical records, or cases, sampled for this portion of PEER’s review represent
211 individuals, with multiple specialty referrals for some individuals within the sample.

40

PEER Report #507

•

44 percent of consult requests within one day of
completion;

•

54 percent of consult requests within 2 days of
completion;

•

82 percent of consult requests within 7 days of
completion;

•

93 percent of consult requests within 14 days of
completion; and,

•

96 percent of consult requests within 30 days of
completion.

Exhibit 4: Number of Days Between Wexford’s Completion of Consult
and Specialty Care Appointment

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC specialty care files.
NOTE: Cumulative percentages show the percentage of consult requests that lie above or below
the number of calendar days. For example, MDOC scheduled 21 percent of appointments within
14 calendar days of completion of the consult, as indicated in the chart.

PEER Report #507

41

The remaining 4 percent of consult requests not submitted
within 30 days represent requests for 9 inmates, for which
35 to 110 days elapsed before Wexford submitted the
consult request to MDOC.

Exhibit 5: Number of Days Between Wexford’s Completion of Consult
and Submission to MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC specialty care files.
NOTE: Cumulative percentages show the percentage of consult requests that lie above or below
the number of calendar days. For example, Wexford submitted 23 percent of consult requests on
the same date of completion of the consult requests, as indicated by the “0” in the chart.

In one example, a December 2006 ophthalmology consult
request marked “urgent” for an inmate with a presumed
diagnosis of glaucoma was not signed and submitted to
MDOC by the Site Medical Director until March 2007. The
inmate was seen by the specialist in May 2007 and was
recommended for surgery to remove cataracts.

42

PEER Report #507

During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s sample, MDOC
reviewed 26 percent of consult requests within one day of receipt to
determine whether the inmate required special care.
As shown in Exhibit 6 on page 44, MDOC reviewed:
•

14 percent of consult requests on the same day of
receipt;

•

26 percent of consult requests within one day of
receipt;

•

32 percent of consult requests within 2 days of
receipt;

•

79 percent of consult requests within 7 days of
receipt;

•

89 percent of consult requests within 14 days of
receipt; and,

•

97 percent of consult requests within 30 days of
receipt.

The remaining 3 percent of consult requests not reviewed
within 30 days of receipt represent requests for 6 inmates,
for which 31 to 90 days elapsed before MDOC reviewed
the consult request.
For 6 inmates in PEER’s
sample, from 31 to 90
days elapsed before
MDOC reviewed the
consult request.

In one example, Wexford submitted a December 2006
cardiology consult request for an inmate with a presumed
diagnosis of angina. MDOC reviewed and returned the
request nearly ten weeks later, requesting additional
information regarding what type of test was being
requested. The inmate saw a cardiologist in late March
and had a cardiac catheterization in late April 2007.

During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s sample, MDOC
scheduled 49 percent of specialty appointments within thirty days of
review.
As shown in Exhibit 7 on page 45, MDOC scheduled:

PEER Report #507

•

29 percent of appointments within 14 days of
review;

•

49 percent of appointments within 30 days of
review;

•

73 percent of appointments within 60 days of
review; and,

43

•

87 percent of appointments within 90 days of
review.

The remaining 13 percent of appointments not scheduled
within 90 days of review represent appointments for 24
inmates, for which 95 to 208 days elapsed before the
inmate saw a specialist.
As an example, MDOC reviewed a July 2006 urology
consult request for an inmate with a painful scrotal mass.
MDOC reviewed the request and scheduled a specialty
appointment over four months later in November. The
inmate was diagnosed with testicular cancer and had
surgery in February.

Exhibit 6: Number of Days Between Receipt and Review of Consult
Request by MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC specialty care files.
NOTE: Cumulative percentages show the percentage of consult requests that lie above or below
the number of calendar days. For example, MDOC reviewed 14 percent of consult requests on the
same date of receipt of the requests, as indicated by the “0” in the chart.

44

PEER Report #507

Exhibit 7: Number of Days Between MDOC’s Review of Consult
Request and Appointment Date

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC specialty care files.
NOTE: Cumulative percentages show the percentage of consult requests that lie above or below
the number of calendar days. For example, MDOC scheduled 29 percent of consult requests
within 14 calendar days of review of the requests, as indicated in the chart.

During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s sample, MDOC did not
assure that all inmates were transported to their specialty care
appointments.
During the period of review, for the cases in PEER’s
sample, seven inmates missed specialty medical care
appointments due to MDOC’s failure to transport inmates
to their appointments. None of the seven records
contained forms stating that the inmates had refused the
appointments; therefore, MDOC was responsible for these
inmates not being seen by specialists on their appointment
dates.
As an example, one inmate with a fractured jaw after an
alleged altercation four days earlier was referred for
urgent specialty care with an oral surgeon on April 26,

PEER Report #507

45

2007. MDOC scheduled an appointment for the inmate on
May 3 (over a week later), but did not transport the inmate
to see the specialist on that date. MDOC rescheduled the
appointment for May 8, but the inmate missed this
appointment as well.
As mentioned previously, MDOC is responsible for the
transportation of inmates to and from specialty care
appointments. An inmate’s health could be at an
increased risk by missing an appointment with a specialist.

Significance of PEER’s Sample Findings
PEER notes that several outliers appear in the charts on
pages 41 through 45. Outliers are numbers that are much
larger or smaller than most of the other numbers in the
data set. For these charts, the outliers represent consult
requests for inmates that took much longer to process
than the other requests. For example, Wexford submitted
the majority of consult requests to MDOC within 2 days of
completion; however, for one inmate (i. e., one outlier),
Wexford did not submit the consult for 110 days.
Wexford does not have
a system in place to
flag or identify consult
requests that have not
been approved by the
medical or dental
director and submitted
to MDOC within an
appropriate amount of
time.

Also, MDOC does not
have a system in place
to flag or identify
consult requests that
have not been
reviewed or scheduled
for appointments
within an appropriate
amount of time.

46

As mentioned previously, the contract between Wexford
and MDOC raised concerns as to whether inmates were
receiving timely medical care when referred for specialty
care. It is apparent that there are delays for some inmates
in receiving specialty care services; however, the extent to
which these delays increase the risks to inmates is
unknown.
Neither Wexford nor MDOC has been able to assess the
risks to inmates. Wexford does not have a system in place
to flag or identify those consult requests, urgent or nonurgent, that have not been approved by the medical or
dental director and submitted to MDOC within an
appropriate amount of time. In turn, MDOC does not have
a system in place to flag or identify those consult requests,
urgent or non-urgent, that have not been reviewed or
scheduled for appointments within an appropriate amount
of time. The outliers mentioned above could represent
inmates with severe conditions that could lead to
otherwise avoidable surgeries and/or death if the inmate
does not receive care from a specialist in a timely manner.

PEER Report #507

Lack of Timeliness Standards for Monitoring Consult Requests
Hinders Accountability
MDOC’s contract with Wexford does not include written timeliness standards
for monitoring Wexford’s submission of consult requests for specialty
medical care. Also, MDOC has not established written timeliness standards
for monitoring the department’s actions on consult requests.
According to the Administrator for the University Clinical
Associates of the University of Mississippi Medical Center
and the Deputy Director/General Counsel of the
Mississippi State Medical Association (MSMA), no criteria
exist for measuring the expediency of processing consult
requests (from completion to submission of consult
requests). Also, according to the Deputy Director/General
Counsel of the MSMA, no well-defined criteria are available
to measure timely attention to inmates with specialty care
needs. Each physician sets his/her own standards for
determining the time frames of specialty care visits.
After MDOC
determines that an
inmate requires
specialty care and
contacts a specialist to
make an appointment,
neither MDOC nor
Wexford can control
the amount of time
that the inmate must
wait before seeing a
specialist.

However, to a certain
extent, Wexford and
MDOC could control
the time frames for
their respective
responsibilities in the
specialty medical care
process prior to this
point.

PEER Report #507

PEER acknowledges that after MDOC determines that an
inmate requires specialty care and contacts a specialist to
make an appointment, neither MDOC nor Wexford can
control the amount of time that the inmate must wait
before seeing a specialist. This span of time depends on
factors such as number of physicians practicing and
available in the specialty, the specialist’s caseload and
schedule, and availability of appointment times. However,
to a certain extent, Wexford and MDOC could control the
time frames for their respective responsibilities in the
specialty medical care process prior to this point.
PEER found that MDOC’s contract with Wexford does not
include timeliness standards for Wexford’s submission of
consult requests for specialty care, even though the
timeliness of the initial phase of the specialty care process
hinges on Wexford health care professionals’ timeliness in
submitting consult requests to MDOC. MDOC should have
written standards in its contract with Wexford for
monitoring actions that the contractor should take during
the portion of the specialty care process that is within the
parameters of the contractor’s responsibility. For
example, MDOC should require by contract that Wexford
establish an acceptable time frame mutually agreeable to
MDOC for the period from the physician’s writing of a
consult request until the submission of that request to
MDOC. Then, if the amount of time for a consult request
to reach MDOC falls outside the acceptable time frame
specified in the contract, Wexford should take some sort
of action on the request and include a notation in the
medical record regarding the status of the request and an
explanation for the delay.

47

No departmental policy
or procedure states
that MDOC should
check the status of an
inmate’s specialty case
after x number of days
after receipt of the
consult (or at other
phases during the
specialty care process)
and include
documentation in the
medical record if the
department has not
contacted a specialist
within that time frame.

Also, MDOC has not established written timeliness
standards for the department’s role in monitoring the
specialty care process. No departmental policy or
procedure states that MDOC should check the status of an
inmate’s specialty case after x number of days after receipt
of the consult (or at other phases during the specialty care
process) and include documentation in the medical record
if the department has not contacted a specialist within
that time frame. In particular, this becomes a factor in
timeliness if MDOC requests additional information from
the contractor during the utilization review process.
MDOC staff state that they utilize informal time frame
goals for their role in the specialty care process (i. e., one
day for submission of consult and one day for review of
consult). However, as shown in the previous subsection,
actual time frames on record in the inmate cases in PEER’s
sample contradict this assertion. Obviously a high
variance exists in the number of days between each phase
of the specialty care process in some cases in the sample,
but the inmate medical records contained no indication
that the variance was attributable to any specific condition
or situation.
As in the contract with Wexford, the department should
have written timeliness standards in its own policies and
procedures for monitoring the actions that the department
should take within the parameters of the department’s
responsibility in specialty care. This could be
accomplished in a relatively simple manner with an
interface between off-the-shelf spreadsheet and database
programs, possibly within resources already maintained by
the department. Another alternative would be a formal
information management system dedicated to
management of inmates’ specialty medical care (see
following subsection). In either situation, the result
should be a method that would incorporate action
standards and would trigger an alert to responsible
personnel if the status of an inmate’s case is not checked
within a time frame determined to be reasonable by the
department. These standards for action should take into
account the possibilities of Wexford’s or MDOC’s
occasional need to obtain additional information before
making decisions on the request and the response time
needed for such, as well as the department’s prioritization
of requests.

48

PEER Report #507

Because of the absence
in the contract of
timeliness standards
for monitoring
specialty care, MDOC
cannot hold Wexford
accountable for any
delays in the
processing of consult
requests for specialty
care.

Because neither Wexford nor MDOC have implemented
written timeliness standards for monitoring the status of
specialty care cases, PEER questions whether some inmates
received access to specialty medical care during the period
of review in the most timely manner possible. According
to the cumulative percentages related to PEER’s sample of
specialty medical care records (see discussion beginning
on page 38), Wexford and MDOC appear to have provided
timely access to specialty care for the majority of inmates.
However, as described previously, specialty care for some
inmates was delayed. Timeliness standards, along with an
effective tracking system, might have provided PEER some
determination as to the significance of these delays.
Because of the absence in the contract of timeliness
standards for monitoring specialty care, MDOC cannot
hold Wexford accountable for any delays in the processing
of consult requests for specialty care. If MDOC could have
ensured Wexford’s timeliness in that portion of the
specialty care process, timeliness of specialty care for
inmates could have been at least somewhat improved.
Also, any noncompliance by the contractor could be
penalized by collection of liquidated damages.

No Effective Method for Tracking Inmates through the Specialty Care Process
Neither MDOC nor Wexford has developed an effective method of tracking
inmates through the specialty medical care process by monitoring important
dates and actions taken on the inmate’s medical case. As a result, MDOC
cannot assure timely specialty care for inmates.
In addition to not having timeliness standards for
monitoring actions taken on specialty medical care, neither
Wexford nor MDOC has an effective method of tracking
information needed to ensure inmates’ timely access to
specialty care.
MDOC’s staff uses a
spreadsheet for
monitoring specialty
care, but this method
has limited value
because it does not
contain all of the
information needed for
tracking inmates
through the specialty
medical care process.

NCCHC standards address the continuity of care during
incarceration: “The facility ensures that inmates receive
diagnostic and other health services ordered by clinicians.”
Further, ACA standards require, “Continuity of care is
required from admission to transfer or discharge from the
facility, including referral to community-based providers,
when indicated.” These standards are a part of the
contract with Wexford and explain that it is MDOC’s
responsibility to monitor inmates’ access to specialty care
services as recommended by Wexford physicians.
MDOC staff state that they monitor specialty care by
utilizing a spreadsheet that lists the consult date, receipt

PEER Report #507

49

date, and appointment date. However, this spreadsheet
has limited value because it does not contain additional
information needed for tracking, such as the type and
severity of the medical condition, the date the consult was
approved by the site medical director, the date on which
MDOC reviewed the consult request, and date the inmate
returned for follow-up care by a Wexford physician or an
outside specialist. Also, because Wexford’s physicians at
CMCF, SMCI, and MSP and MDOC’s specialty care staff do
not have access to the same database of information,
Wexford’s physicians cannot adequately monitor the
progress of inmates. This information also becomes
critical in the event that the inmate is transferred to
another correctional facility.
The following are examples of the lack of effective
tracking of inmates under specialty medical care:
•

In September 2006, a Wexford physician submitted
a consult request for a specialty appointment with
a neurosurgeon because of an inmate’s
symptomatic herniated discs. The physician emailed MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care in March
2007 inquiring about the consult. MDOC
responded that the inmate was “lost for follow-up”
and that an appointment would be made
immediately. The inmate had an MRI in March and
saw a specialist in April.

•

On April 13, 2007, MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care
received a consult request by a Wexford physician
(optometrist) for a specialty appointment with an
ophthalmologist for glaucoma. The physician
followed up on the consult with MDOC on April 30,
stating that the consult was sent “urgently” and
that the inmate had “severe pain.” MDOC
responded that the inmate was scheduled for an
appointment on May 15, 2007. The physician
requested that the inmate be seen sooner and the
appointment was rescheduled for May 7. The
inmate was not transported to CMCF for
housing/transport to the specialty appointment
and was released from custody prior to the next
scheduled appointment on June 1, 2007. PEER
notes that there was no “urgent” indication on the
consult request; however, if an effective tracking
system had been in place, then this inmate might
have been seen by a specialist before being
released.

PEER believes that a method such as a formal information
management system for tracking inmates through the
specialty care process would be an effective way to assure

50

PEER Report #507

timely access to specialty medical care and could most
likely be accomplished with MDOC’s existing resources.
Without adequate data,
neither Wexford nor
MDOC can assess its
own performance in
providing timely
access to specialty
care.

PEER Report #507

Because neither Wexford nor MDOC has implemented an
effective method of tracking inmates through specialty
care, the potential exists for inmates to be “lost” within the
specialty care process. Also, without adequate data,
neither Wexford nor MDOC can assess its own
performance in providing timely access to specialty care.

51

Operational Issues: MDOC and Wexford
During PEER’s review of inmates’ medical records to
determine the quality of medical care state inmates
received from January 1 through May 31, 2007, at the
three parent correctional facilities, PEER identified
operational issues that also affect quality of care:
•

medical staffing;

•

quality assurance and recordkeeping; and,

•

MDOC’s medical expenditures.

PEER also compared MDOC’s FY 2007 medical costs under
the contract with Wexford to the correctional system’s FY
2006 costs for medical care.

Issues with Medical Staffing
While reviewing inmate medical records to determine
quality of care, for the period of review PEER noted the
following deficiencies in the medical staffing of the
correctional facilities:
•

Wexford’s medical staffing levels were not in
compliance with the contract requirements;

•

MDOC did not require Wexford to submit
documentation of all licensures, certifications, and
registrations of all medical staff to MDOC for
review; and,

•

neither MDOC nor Wexford ensured sufficient
orientation/training of temporary medical staff.

PEER also determined that MDOC has not collected
liquidated damages for Wexford’s failure to meet staffing
requirements of the contract and thus has not recouped
any of the state funds paid for staffing that was not
provided.

52

PEER Report #507

Wexford’s Noncompliance with Contract Requirements for
Staffing Levels
During the period of review, Wexford’s staffing levels did not comply with contract
requirements. Therefore, neither MDOC nor Wexford could ensure appropriate and
timely access to quality medical care for state inmates.
MDOC defines a full-time equivalent (FTE) as a unit of
measure that is equal to one filled, full-time staff position.
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, Wexford is to
maintain specified minimum full-time equivalent staffing
levels at each of the three parent correctional facilities.
Each correctional facility’s required minimum staffing
level is different due to the fact that each correctional
facility houses a different number of state inmates. The
more state inmates a correctional facility houses, the
higher the minimum required staffing level would need to
be in order to provide medical care.
PEER reviewed Wexford’s quarterly medical staffing
reports for CMCF, SMCI, and MSP for the period of January
1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. The staffing reports show
computations of medical staffing shortages and overages
at each facility.
The overall minimum FTE staffing requirements include
FTE requirements for several medical staff positions,
including registered nurses, physicians, mental health
professionals, and dentists. Exhibit 8, page 54,
summarizes the contract staffing requirements for each
facility for the first and second quarters of 2007, showing
the required and actual FTEs and FTE shortages.
Wexford did not meet
the contract’s FTE
staffing requirements
at any of the three
parent facilities for the
first two quarters of
calendar year 2007.

PEER Report #507

Appendix K, pages 87 through 89, shows the contract FTE
requirements by staff position at each of the three parent
facilities for the first two quarters of 2007, as well as the
actual staffing FTEs by position.
As shown in Exhibit 8, in Appendix K, and discussed in
the following subsections, Wexford did not meet the
contract’s FTE staffing requirements at any of the three
parent facilities for the first two quarters of 2007 (January
1 through June 30).

53

Exhibit 8: Summary of Wexford’s Staffing of MDOC Parent Facilities,
January-June 2007
First Quarter of 2007 (January-March)
Facility

FTEs Required
by Contract

Actual FTEs

Shortage

CMCF

67.00

58.49

8.51

SMCI

39.00

37.45

1.55

MSP

97.30

71.09

26.21

Second Quarter of 2007 (April-June)
Facility

FTEs Required
by Contract

Actual FTEs

Shortage

CMCF

67.00

61.50

5.50

SMCI

39.00

36.71

2.29

MSP

97.30

85.40

11.90

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC’s quarterly reports for January-June 2007.

Wexford did not meet the contract requirements for FTE staffing at CMCF
for the first two quarters of 2007 (January 1 through June 30, 2007).
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, CMCF should
have an overall minimum medical staffing FTE of 67.0.
During the first quarter of 2007 (January through March),
CMCF had an actual medical staffing FTE of 58.49, with an
overall medical staffing shortage of 8.51 FTE.
During the first two
quarters of 2007,
Wexford’s actual RN
staffing level at CMCF
was approximately
half of the RN staffing
level required by the
medical services
contract.

54

The chief medical FTE staffing shortage area for the first
quarter at CMCF was Registered Nurse (RN) staffing. The
medical services contract required 16.0 FTEs and Wexford
had an actual RN staffing FTE of 9.0. Wexford’s RN staffing
FTE was approximately half of the required RN FTE
staffing level in the medical services contract.
During the second quarter of 2007 (April through June),
CMCF did improve upon its medical staffing FTE from the
first quarter, but still did not meet the contract’s required
overall minimum medical staffing FTE of 67.0. CMCF had
an overall actual second quarter medical staffing level of

PEER Report #507

61.50, with an overall medical staffing shortage of 5.50
FTE.
The major problem area in the second quarter continued
to be RN staffing. The required FTE for RN staffing was
16.0, while CMCF had an actual FTE staffing level of 8.0
during the second quarter. See Appendix K, page 87, for a
complete breakdown of the required and actual staffing
levels at CMCF during the review period.
In addition to noncompliance with medical staffing FTE
requirements of the contract, during this period Wexford
could not ensure that all state inmates at CMCF received
timely, adequate access to medical care.

Wexford did not meet the contract requirements for FTE staffing at SMCI for
the first two quarters of 2007 (January 1 through June 30, 2007).
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, SMCI should
have an overall minimum medical staffing FTE of 39.0.
During the first quarter of 2007, SMCI had an actual
medical staffing FTE of 37.45, with an overall medical
staffing shortage of 1.55 FTEs.
During the first two
quarters of 2007,
Wexford’s actual
Mental Health
Professional (MHP)
staffing level at SMCI
was less than half of
the MHP staffing level
required by the
medical services
contract.

The chief medical staffing shortage area for the first
quarter at SMCI was Mental Health Professional (MHP)
staffing. The medical services contract required 2.0 FTEs
and Wexford had actual MHP staffing FTE of .75. Wexford’s
Mental Health Professional FTE staffing level was less than
half of the required staffing level in the medical services
contract.
During the second quarter of 2007, SMCI had an actual FTE
staffing level of 36.71, with an overall medical staffing
shortage of 2.29 FTEs.
The major problem area during the second quarter
continued to be MHP staffing. The required FTE for MHP
staffing was 2.0 while SMCI had an actual FTE staffing
level of .90 during the second quarter. See Appendix K,
page 88, for a complete breakdown of the required and
actual staffing levels at SMCI during the review period.
In addition to noncompliance with FTE medical staffing
requirements of the contract, during this period Wexford
could not ensure that all state inmates at SMCI received
timely, adequate access to medical care.

PEER Report #507

55

Wexford did not meet the contract requirements for FTE staffing at MSP for
the first two quarters of 2007 (January 1 through June 30, 2007).
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, MSP should
have an overall minimum medical staffing FTE of 97.30.
During the first quarter of 2007, MSP had an actual
medical staffing FTE of 71.09, with an overall first quarter
FTE staffing shortage of 26.21 FTE.
MSP had several staffing shortage areas for the first
quarter at MSP. These included RN staffing, LPN staffing
and dental staffing. The required FTE for RNs during the
first quarter was 16.0, while Wexford actually had 8.5. The
required FTE for LPNs for the first quarter was 27.0, while
Wexford had 15.60. The required FTE for dentists during
the first quarter was 3.50, while Wexford had 2.0.
During the first two
quarters of 2007,
Wexford’s actual RN
and LPN staffing levels
at MSP were below the
respective staffing
levels required by the
medical services
contract.

During the second quarter of 2007, MSP had an actual
second quarter staffing level of 85.40, with an overall
second quarter FTE staffing shortage of 11.90 FTE.
The major problem area was RN and LPN staffing, along
with physician staffing. MSP corrected the first quarter
dental staffing shortage by the second quarter and was
fully staffed in that area. The required FTE for RN staffing
was 16.0, while MSP had an actual FTE staffing level of
11.60 during the second quarter. The required FTE for LPN
staffing was 27.0, while MSP had an actual LPN staffing
level of 21.50. The required FTE for physician staffing was
4.0, while MSP had 3.0 during the second quarter. See
Appendix K, page 89, for a complete breakdown of the
required and actual staffing levels at MSP during the
review period.
In addition to noncompliance with FTE medical staffing
requirements of the contract, during this period Wexford
could not ensure that all state inmates at MSP received
timely, adequate access to medical care.

No Verification of Licensure
Without providing any type of oversight, MDOC relied on Wexford to ensure that its
medical personnel were properly licensed, certified, or registered in the state of
Mississippi. As a result, during the period of review at least five individuals
without proper credentials provided medical care to inmates.
Regarding licensure, certification, or registration of
medical staff for correctional facilities, NCCHC standards
state:
All health care personnel
services to inmates are

56

who provide
appropriately

PEER Report #507

credentialed according to
certification,
and/or
requirements of the state.

the licensure,
registration

ACA standards state:
All professional staff comply with applicable
state and federal licensure, certification, or
registration requirements. Verification of
current credentials and job descriptions
should be kept on file at the facility.

MDOC does not
require Wexford to
submit any verification
to MDOC that the
individuals employed
by Wexford are
appropriately licensed,
certified, or registered.

MDOC’s contract with Wexford requires Wexford to
confirm that all the required registrations, licenses, and
credentials are active, unrestricted, and in good standing
for professionals contracted or engaged by Wexford to
provide services at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP. The contract
also requires Wexford to verify with the state licensure
board the status of every physician, nurse, or other
personnel requiring a license to practice his or her
profession prior to contracting with or employing a health
care professional to work in one of the three parent
facilities. However, MDOC does not require Wexford to
submit any verification to MDOC that the individuals
employed by Wexford are appropriately licensed, certified,
or registered.

The five individuals
employed without
proper credentials
during the review
period included three
radiology technicians,
one pharmacy
technician, and one
dental assistant.

PEER verified the license, certification, or registration of
314 Wexford employees at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP as of
October 24, 2007, for sixteen different position titles.
These positions included physicians, physician assistants,
psychiatrists, dentists, dental assistants, nurse
practitioners, nurses, pharmacy technicians, x-ray
technicians, radiology technicians, and emergency medical
technologists. Of the 314 positions reviewed, five (1.59%)
were not licensed, certified or registered as required by
state law. The five positions included three radiology
technicians, one pharmacy technician, and one dental
assistant. See Appendix L, page 90, for a breakdown of
licensed, registered, and certified staff at the three parent
facilities.
As a result of MDOC’s failure to verify licensures,
registrations, and certifications, during the period of
review Wexford employed medical staff without proper
credentials to provide medical care to state inmates.

PEER Report #507

57

Insufficient Orientation/Training of Temporary Nursing Staff
Although Wexford has an orientation program in place for newly hired full-time
medical staff, MDOC did not require in contract that Wexford provide temporary
nursing staff with basic orientation relative to provision of medical care in a
correctional environment.
NCCHC standards state, “All health staff receive an
immediate basic orientation and all full-time staff
complete a formal in-depth orientation to the health
services program.”
NCCHC defines basic orientation as orientation provided
on the first day of employment to include information
needed for the health staff member to function safely in
the institution. NCCH defines in-depth orientation as
orientation provided to fully familiarize the health staff
member with the health services delivery system at the
facility and it focuses on the similarities as well as the
differences between providing health care in the
community and in the correctional setting.
Wexford’s policy and procedures state, “Wexford requires
that all newly employed health service staff be oriented to
the facility and their job responsibilities, beginning at the
time of their employment.” Wexford requires all of its
employees to receive basic training on the first day of
employment that includes information such as security
procedures and the emergency response plan. Within
ninety days of employment, Wexford employees receive indepth training that includes topics such as inmate
classification and age- and health-specific needs of an
inmate population.
During the period of
review, CMCF utilized
agency nurses without
any orientation or
training in providing
health care in a
correctional
environment.

Although Wexford provides both basic and in-depth
orientation and training for its newly hired full-time
employees, agency nurses do not receive the same type of
training regarding the correctional environment. “Agency
nurses” work for other employers and are assigned to
Wexford on an as-needed basis when staffing shortages
occur. Agency nurses work varying schedules and may
only work one day at a facility.
During the period of review, Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility was the only facility that utilized
agency nurses. According to the Director of Nursing at
CMCF, the agency nurses utilized by CMCF during that
period worked without any orientation or training in
providing health care in a correctional environment.
MDOC did not require in the contract with Wexford, or
through its departmental policies and procedures, that all

58

PEER Report #507

agency nurses receive basic orientation regarding
provision of medical care in a correctional environment.
This could result in a decrease in the quality of inmate
care because the agency nurses are not familiar with the
inmates and type of care they need. Also, this practice
could present a security risk to inmates and staff.

No Collection of Liquidated Damages for Staffing Shortages
Although as of June 30, 2007, the MDOC Chief Medical Officer had recommended
assessment of over $1 million in liquidated damages, of which $931,310 was
incurred due to staffing shortages, MDOC management has not formally assessed
or collected any liquidated damages from Wexford to recoup state funds paid for
staffing that was not provided.
According to MDOC’s Chief Medical Officer, MDOC
monitors Wexford staffing levels through staffing reports
submitted to the MDOC Chief Medical Officer by the MDOC
Health Service Administrator (HSA). The HSA acts as a
liaison between Wexford and the MDOC Chief Medical
Officer. The HSA is responsible for compiling staffing
reports by using Wexford’s Employee Register Report,
Vacancy Report, and Bi-weekly Hours Report and
submitting the specified staffing reports upon request of
the Chief Medical Officer. The HSA also assists with
compliance monitoring of the contractor’s medical staff.
The MDOC
Commissioner
ultimately has the
responsibility of
formally assessing and
collecting all staffing
liquidated damages.

Upon reviewing the staffing reports for each quarter, the
MDOC HSA may recommend liquidated damages that may
be assessed and submits these recommendations to the
MDOC Chief Medical Officer for review. The Chief Medical
Officer prepares quarterly reports that include staffing
level shortages at the three parent facilities and submits
the quarterly reports to the MDOC Commissioner for
review. The MDOC Commissioner ultimately has the
responsibility of formally assessing and collecting all
staffing liquidated damages.
MDOC extended Wexford a grace period for the first six
months of the medical services contract (July 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006). This was intended as a
transition period for Wexford and to allow MDOC to
monitor Wexford’s staffing shortages, providing feedback
to Wexford management to allow the contractor to correct
staffing shortages before becoming subject to liquidated
damages.
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, MDOC was
able to formally assess and collect liquidated damages for
noncompliance with contract requirements as of January
1, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, the Chief Medical Officer had
recommended $1,152,810 in liquidated damages for
noncompliance with contract standards. Of this total,

PEER Report #507

59

$931,310 was related to staffing shortages. Exhibit 9 on
page 61 contains a breakdown by facility and by quarter of
staffing liquidated damages due to staffing shortages that
were recommended to MDOC management between
January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007.
Because of the method
specified in contract
for assessing
liquidated damages
due to staffing
shortages, actual
staffing shortages at
the facilities could be
even greater than
those reflected in the
quarterly reports.

Because of the method specified in contract for assessing
liquidated damages due to staffing shortages, actual
staffing shortages at the facilities could be even greater
than those reflected in the quarterly reports (see Exhibit 8,
page 54). As noted on page 53, in the contract, MDOC set
minimum required FTE staffing levels for each parent
facility by medical position. If Wexford falls below the
medical services contract specified minimum staffing
level, then Wexford is subject to liquidated damages. The
current assessment method for liquidated damages in the
contract allows Wexford to have a position vacant for
ninety days before Wexford must reimburse MDOC for
that position. The MDOC Chief Medical Officer
recommends liquidated damages for staffing based on the
standard hourly rate for the vacant position in excess of
ninety days that the position remained vacant. The
recommended liquidated damages are calculated on a
quarterly basis.
Because MDOC’s contract does not require that MDOC
recommend staffing liquidated damages on a daily basis,
Wexford is allowed to keep a staffing position paid for by
MDOC open for 89 days without having to have an
individual in the position providing any type of medical
care.
Because MDOC management has not formally assessed
and collected the MDOC Chief Medical Officer’s
recommended staffing liquidated damages from the
contractor, Wexford is not being held accountable for
noncompliance with contract standards in regard to
maintaining adequate levels of qualified staff to provide
medical services to state inmates. Also, MDOC has not
recouped state funds paid for staffing that was not
provided.

60

PEER Report #507

Exhibit 9: Liquidated Damages Recommended by the MDOC Chief
Medical Officer for Staffing Shortages between January 1, 2007, and
June 30, 2007

1st Quarter Staffing
Liquidated Damages
Recommended
2nd Quarter Staffing
Liquidated Damages
Recommended
Total Staffing
Liquidated Damages
January-June 2007

Central Mississippi
Correctional
Facility

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

Total Staffing
Liquidated Damages

$148,709.74

$46,512.49

$298,908.82

$494,131.05

$143,651.07

$45,493.87

$248,034.02

$437,178.96

$292,360.81

$92,006.36

$546,942.84

$931,310.01

SOURCE: MDOC’s first and second quarter staffing reports for 2007.

Issues with Quality Assurance for Contract Compliance and Recordkeeping
During the period of review, neither MDOC nor Wexford had a quality assurance
program for contract compliance that ensured timely access and continuity of
medical care through accurate and appropriate medical recordkeeping.
ACA defines quality assurance as:
. . .a formal, internal monitoring program
that uses standardized criteria to ensure
quality and consistency. The program
identifies opportunities for improvement,
develops improvement strategies, and
monitors their effectiveness.
A major part of a correctional quality assurance program
is ensuring that accurate medical records are maintained
at all correctional facilities.
While reviewing inmate medical records in order to
determine the overall quality of medical care, PEER
identified several operational issues associated with the
way medical records are maintained at the three parent
correctional facilities. PEER also noted a lack of overall
quality assurance programs in place at both MDOC and
Wexford. The major areas of concern associated with
quality assurance and medical recordkeeping include:
•

PEER Report #507

neither MDOC nor Wexford has an effective quality
assurance process;

61

•

significant percentages of inmates’ medical records
lack critical medical information; and,

•

no assurance of confidentiality exists in the
transport of inmates’ medical records.

No Effective Quality Assurance Programs for Contract
Compliance
MDOC has not included a formal quality assurance program in the Wexford
medical services contract to ensure that Wexford is held accountable for
meeting established contract compliance standards.
Under the Wexford medical services contract, Wexford is
responsible for meeting certain compliance standards for
medical care as discussed on pages 11 through 25. In
order to monitor contract compliance, MDOC requires
Wexford to submit electronically daily, weekly, monthly
and/or quarterly reports for specified medical areas within
the medical services contract, such as inmate intake, sick
call, dental, and mental health reports. However, MDOC
did not require in contract that Wexford develop a quality
assurance program that ensures that all reports submitted
are accurate, correct, and contain all medical information
needed to determine contract compliance.
PEER reviewed the overall quality assurance process for
both Wexford and MDOC to determine whether either has
an acceptable means of ensuring that all state inmates
receive adequate and timely access to medical care.

Wexford’s Quality Assurance
Wexford does not have a quality assurance plan in place that ensures
that the MDOC Health Service Administrator receives accurate medical
compliance data from Wexford’s databases to use in conducting
compliance audits.
According to MDOC’s contract with Wexford, Wexford is
required to submit medical reports to MDOC within the
time periods specified in contract. However, Wexford does
not have a quality assurance program that ensures MDOC
that the information submitted by Wexford is accurate.
ACA standards require that “a system of documented
internal reviews be developed and implemented by the
health authority.” Both ACA and NCCHC standards, as well
as MDOC’s policies and procedures, designate the
contractor as the “health authority.” ACA standards also
require eleven items to be documented as part of internal
reviews.

62

PEER Report #507

PEER noted three necessary elements of quality assurance
not included by Wexford to ensure quality of data
submitted to MDOC Health Service Administrators at the
three parent facilities. These elements include:
•

collecting, trending, and analyzing of data
combined with planning, intervening, and
reassessing;

•

evaluating defined data, which would result in
more effective access, improved quality of care,
and better utilization of resources; and,

•

on-site monitoring of health service outcomes on a
regular basis.

Following are two notable examples of Wexford’s lack of
quality assurance during the review period.
•

PEER noted missing mental health log sheets at
SMCI. Wexford did not have any mental health logs
between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007, for
mental health. Without source data, Wexford
cannot assure MDOC that all required mental
health care is performed in a timely manner.

•

PEER requested all electronic databases between
January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2007, for sick call and
chronic care at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP. The sick call
database submitted by Wexford to the MDOC
Health Service Administrator at SMCI showed a
total of 2,820 sick call requests at SMCI during this
period. However, PEER reviewed the Wexford logs
and found 8,308 sick calls were actually submitted
during this period--66% more than was reported in
the Wexford database. Also, the sick call database
submitted by Wexford to the MDOC Health Service
Administrator at CMCF showed a total of 4,033 sick
call requests. PEER reviewed the Wexford logs and
found 6,349 sick call requests were submitted
during this period--36% more than was reported in
the Wexford database.

As a result of Wexford’s not having a quality assurance
program in place that ensures accurate and correct data is
being submitted, MDOC is not able to monitor with any
degree of assurance the contractor’s compliance for timely
access with requirements for medical care for sick call,
dental, mental health, and other medical areas.
Also, the possibility exists that Wexford could submit data
that it as the vendor wants MDOC to audit for compliance
purposes, while omitting data that does not comply with

PEER Report #507

63

contract standards, NCCHC standards, or ACA standards
and therefore possibly subject to liquidated damages.

MDOC’s Quality Assurance
MDOC did not establish in its contract with Wexford a formal audit
methodology that utilizes confidence levels and compliance ranges and
includes all contracted medical service areas. Therefore, MDOC cannot
ensure that all state inmates receive timely access to quality medical
care.
Under MDOC’s contract with Wexford, MDOC uses a
randomized audit methodology for monitoring contract
compliance. However, MDOC relies entirely on Wexford
databases submitted for all required medical compliance
information established in contract, instead of reviewing
all the source data such as medical logs at each facility. As
stated on page 62, these databases submitted by Wexford
do not go through a system of quality controls or checks
for accuracy by Wexford and thus should not be
considered reliable sets of data.
MDOC relies entirely
on Wexford’s
databases submitted
for all medical
compliance
information required
by contract, instead of
reviewing source data
such as medical logs at
each facility.

From these Wexford databases, MDOC picks every fifth
inmate name up to a maximum of fifty inmates per audit
area (e. g., sick call, dental, mental health). MDOC reviews
the medical records of the selected inmates and measures
the compliance components established in contract to
determine whether Wexford is meeting contract
requirements. As noted previously, each facility must
meet at least an 85% compliance percentage per audit area.
If a facility falls below the 85% compliance rate, then the
contractor is subject to liquidated damages.
PEER determined the following problems with the audit
methodology of MDOC.

64

•

MDOC has not established an audit plan that
incorporates confidence levels of assurance into
the compliance audit and thus cannot be sure of
any of the audit results.

•

MDOC relies on Wexford to submit databases to
develop a sample pool, which is not a reliable
source of data because no quality assurance
program exists for Wexford’s databases.

•

MDOC only audits fifty medical records per audit
area and thus cannot ensure that a representative
sample is being performed.

•

MDOC does not audit every medical service
provided by Wexford, such as chronic care. As
noted on page 26, chronic care is not even

PEER Report #507

addressed in the medical services contract. Thus
MDOC cannot ensure all inmates receive timely
access to medical care.
As a result of not having a formal audit methodology,
MDOC cannot accurately make contract compliance
decisions with any level of confidence nor is MDOC able
ensure that Wexford is providing all state inmates with
timely access to quality medical care. Also, MDOC is not
able to assess liquidated damages accurately for failure to
meet contract compliance standards, because MDOC does
not know if the data received from Wexford is even
accurate. Therefore, money owed to the state for
Wexford’s failure to meet contract compliance may not be
assessed and collected.

Significant Percentages of Indeterminate Medical Records
Wexford does not have a quality assurance program in place that ensures
that all medical records are accurate and can be used to make timely
decisions in regard to state inmates’ medical care.
As discussed on pages 11 through 36 of this report, PEER
reviewed medical records for routine care and chronic care
at CMCF, SMCI, and MSP between January 1, 2007, and May
31, 2007. As part of the chronic care review, PEER
attempted to review the inmates’ medical records for
mental health care, but was unable to due to missing
mental health record information (e. g., missing mental
health referral dates, medication dates, and mental health
logs). Also, of the mental health records PEER did attempt
to audit, the mental health records were mixed with
regular medical records, making it difficult to determine
which records were for mental health care and which
records were routine medical care records.
PEER noted numerous
inmate medical
records that were
missing critical
medical information
needed to make timely
medical care decisions.

Wexford does not have a quality assurance program in
place that ensures that physicians, nurses, dentists, and
psychiatrists are properly documenting all critical medical
information in inmates’ medical records. PEER noted
numerous inmate medical records that were missing
critical medical information such as appointment dates,
facility locations, times, physician signatures, chronic care
treatment plans, chronic care follow-up visit notations,
two-year dental prophylaxis notations, and other
information needed to make timely medical care decisions.
As a result of not having a quality assurance program in
place that ensures that all medical records are properly
documented with critical information needed to make
medical decisions, Wexford cannot ensure that inmates are
receiving adequate and timely access to medical care.
Exhibit 10, page 66, illustrates the percentage of

PEER Report #507

65

indeterminate records for each medical area PEER
reviewed during the period of January 1, 2007, through
May 31, 2007.

Exhibit 10: Percentages of Medical Records PEER Considered to be
Indeterminate for the Period January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007
Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility

South Mississippi
Correctional Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

0%

0%

0%

3.2%

2.5%

14.9%

19.4%

4.2%

22.1%

5.9%

14.6%

4.2%

26.5%

18.6%

18.6%

Physician notation of
referral for chronic care
visit within 6 months

14.2%

1.7%

2.0%

Notation of chronic care
medication treatment
plan

14.2%

1.7%

0%

Inmate intake
Sick call 24 hour triage
Sick call 7 day physician
visit
2-Year dental prophylaxis
Chronic care visit within
6 months

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC and Wexford indeterminate records.

Transportation of and Controlled Access to Medical Records
Wexford does not maintain confidentiality of inmates’ medical records by
ensuring that all medical records and medications are sealed at the time of
inmate transport from one correctional facility to another.
Regarding transportation of and controlled access to
medical records, MDOC policy states:
It is the policy of the Mississippi Department
of
Corrections
(MDOC)
to
ensure
responsibility of all at MDOC and its contract
workers the confidentiality of all inmate
medical records. When an inmate is
transported to a medical/surgical specialist
or transferred to another location, all
medical documentation will be sealed in an
envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH
INFORMATION.

66

PEER Report #507

NCCHC standards state:
The confidentiality of a patient’s written or
electronic health record, as well as verbally
conveyed health information, is maintained.
If health records are transported by nonhealth staff, the records are sealed.
Inmates in the state correctional system are frequently
transferred from one correctional facility to another
correctional facility during their time of incarceration.
Whenever an inmate leaves one facility and is transferred
to another facility, the inmate’s medical records and all
current medications must follow the inmate.
Under the
department’s current
system, both MDOC
and Wexford are
breaching
confidentiality of
medical records, which
is in direct violation of
both agency policy and
national standards.

When the department transfers an inmate from one facility
to another, Wexford medical personnel at the transferring
facility complete an American Correctional Association
(ACA) intra-system transfer form which lists all of the
inmate’s current medications, the dosages, the last time
the medication was taken by the inmate, and the amount
of medication being transferred. The transfer form also
lists the current medical conditions of the inmate. Once
the inmate arrives at the facility to which he or she is
being transferred, medical personnel at the receiving
facility review the inmate’s medical records and take
custody of any medications.
Contrary to MDOC policies, Wexford medical personnel do
not place and seal inmates’ medical records and
medications in boxes or envelopes prior to an inmate’s
transfer to another facility. MDOC security officers
typically carry inmates’ medical records without any type
of special packaging and protective seal. In addition,
medications for inmates being transferred are transported
in mesh bags with no security measures to ensure that the
contents of the bags are not tampered with or lost.
Under the department’s current system, both MDOC and
Wexford are breaching confidentiality of medical records,
which is in direct violation of both agency policy and
national standards. Also, by failing to secure all medical
records and medications, the possibility exists that health
record information could be shared or lost in route. Also,
medications could be lost, stolen, or sold on the bus in
route to the facility to which the inmate is being
transported.

PEER Report #507

67

MDOC’s FY 2007 Medical Expenditures
MDOC spent approximately $42.8 million for inmate medical care in FY 2007,
approximately $1.1 million more than it would have expended for Wexford’s
turnkey proposal to provide comprehensive medical services to inmates and
approximately $2.8 million more than its FY 2007 appropriation for medical
services.
As noted on page 7, in contemplating the provision of
inmate medical services for future years, the Department
of Corrections considered three possible models for
providing medical care to inmates:
•

providing all medical care to inmates through use
of state employees;

•

contracting with a provider for comprehensive
medical care (“turnkey” approach), with the
department having only oversight responsibilities;
and,

•

a combination of the two, with a contractor
assuming responsibility for medical care rendered
inside institutions and the department having
responsibility for specialty care rendered outside of
institutions.

As stated on page 8, although Wexford submitted a
turnkey proposal in the amount of $41.7 million per year,
the department chose the combination approach and
entered into a contract with Wexford to provide routine
medical care for approximately $30 million for FY 2007.
(Exhibit 11, page 69, shows a comparison of the covered
medical services, responsibilities, and costs of Wexford’s
turnkey and combination models.) The department based
financial terms of the contract on an inmate per diem rate
and an estimated average daily population of 14,300
inmates in FY 2007. MDOC’s FY 2007 actual average daily
population for the facilities for which Wexford provides
medical care was 13,758.
As shown in Exhibit 11, MDOC’s actual expenditures for
inmate medical care for FY 2007 were approximately $42.8
million. In addition to paying Wexford approximately $30
million for providing routine medical care, the department
incurred expenses of approximately $12.8 million for
providing specialty medical care for inmates. By rejecting
Wexford’s turnkey proposal and opting to use the
combination model, the department expended
approximately $42.8 million, or about $1.1 million more
than it would have if the department had accepted
Wexford’s turnkey proposal.

68

PEER Report #507

Exhibit 11: Comparison of Covered Medical Services, Responsibilities, and Costs of
the Turnkey and Combination Models for Providing Inmate Medical Care, FY 2007

Service
Model

Wexford’s

MDOC’s

Responsibilities

Responsibilities

Services

Subtotal
(in
millions*

Services

Wexford’s
Turnkey
Proposal

All medical services
including inpatient
hospitalization,
outpatient services,
utilization review, and
medical claims

$41.7

None

Current
Contract

All basic services for
routine, chronic, dental,
and some specialty care
services**

$30.0

Some specialty
care,*** inpatient
hospitalization,
outpatient
services,
utilization review,
and medical claims

with Wexford
(Combination
Model)

Difference

$11.7

Total
Cost

Subtotal
(in
millions)*

(in
millions)
*
$41.7

$12.8

$42.8

Difference

$1.1

*Dollar amounts are approximate, rounded amounts for FY 2007.
**According to the contract, Wexford must provide the following specialty care through its chronic care clinics:
optometry, radiology, dialysis, audiology, and care for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and
tuberculosis.
***According to the contract, MDOC is financially responsible for all other specialty care services for state
inmates off site.
Terms According to Contract:
Routine Care--consists of any non-emergent medical or dental care than can be completed on-site at one of the
three parent facilities without consulting a specialist.
Chronic Care--consists of any non-emergent medical care, including mental health care, that can be treated on
site. The ACA defines this type of care as health care provided over a long period to those patients who
suffer from long-term health conditions or illnesses. The NCCHC defines a chronic illness as a condition that
affects an individual’s well-being for an extended interval, usually at least six months, and generally is not
curable, but can be managed to provide optimum functioning within any limitations the condition imposes on
the individual.
Specialty Care--consists of any medical care that requires a specialist (such as a cardiologist or
ophthalmologist) and may be completed on- or off-site, depending on whether Wexford or MDOC is
responsible for treatment.
SOURCE: DFA, MDOC, and State Personnel Board records.

PEER Report #507

69

MDOC’s FY 2007 appropriation bill had included spending
authority for $40,011,620 to operate the department’s
medical services program. In spending $42.8 million on
medical services, the department exceeded its FY 2007
spending authority by approximately $2.8 million, as
shown below:

$ 30 million*

amount MDOC spent for contract with
Wexford for routine inmate medical care

+12.8 million

amount MDOC spent beyond the contract
for inmate specialty medical care

$42.8 million

total amount MDOC spent in FY 2007 for
inmate medical care

-40.0 million

amount of MDOC’s spending authority for
inmate medical care

$2.8 million

amount by which MDOC’s inmate medical
care expenditures exceeded FY 2007
spending authority

*Dollar amounts are approximate, rounded amounts for FY 2007.

The department either underestimated the costs of
specialty care or failed to monitor specialty care expenses
during FY 2007.
The department either
underestimated the
costs of specialty care
or failed to monitor
specialty care
expenses associated
during FY 2007.

According to staff of the Department of Finance and
Administration, as of October 3, 2007, MDOC had
exceeded its total FY 2007 spending authority by
approximately $5.2 million, with $2.8 million of that
amount attributable to medical services. To cover the $5.2
million that it overspent during FY 2007, the department
used a portion of its FY 2008 appropriation. This practice
violates MISS. CODE ANN. Section 27-104-25 (1972), which
states that an agency may pay a claim from a prior fiscal
year if the claim is presented within one year, if the claim
does not cause the agency to exceed its prior year’s
appropriation bill, and if sufficient funds remain in the
current year’s allotment—i. e., appropriation amount—to
pay the claim. Because the department had a balance of
$1.7 million remaining from its FY 2007 appropriation, the
department did not have sufficient funds remaining to
offset the $5.2 million that it overspent in FY 2007.
MDOC’s Deputy Commissioner for Administration and
Finance told PEER that the law required the department to
pay the medical expenses of state inmates. Thus, although
a portion of these expenditures caused the department to

70

PEER Report #507

exceed its FY 2007 spending authority, the department
paid these expenditures with its FY 2008 funds to satisfy
this legal obligation. PEER knows of no provision of law
that exempts MDOC from statutes proscribing the
conditions under which deficit spending may occur.
PEER knows of no
provision of law that
exempts MDOC from
statutes proscribing
the conditions under
which deficit spending
may occur.

Since MDOC has violated state law governing FY 2007
expenditures with lapsed money, the department has
reduced its available budgeted funds by at least $3.5
million for FY 2008. Thus, MDOC may not have sufficient
funding to procure all necessary services and supplies for
its programs without a deficit appropriation for FY 2009
or violating the law for paying FY 2008 expenditures with
FY 2009 funds.
At this time, PEER is not certain as to whether there will be
other claims for services rendered for the department in
FY 2007. Strictly speaking, CODE Section 27-104-25 (1972)
would require vendors of such services to proceed against
the executive director of the agency or the business
manager for the amounts incurred in excess of the
agency’s spending authority. While not mentioned in the
section, PEER does not believe that this law would preclude
the Legislature from approving a deficit appropriation
during the 2008 session to pay the additional expenses
incurred in FY 2007. Funds expended contrary to law
should still be the subject of an investigation by the State
Auditor with possible action following to recover any
funds expended in violation of law.

PEER Report #507

71

Recommendations
Amendments to Inmate Medical Services Contract
1.

72

The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should seek to amend the department’s medical
services contract to require Wexford to:
•

use a uniform method (such as a date stamp)
by which qualified personnel document the
date of receipt of inmates’ sick call requests
and the date on which such sick call requests
are triaged. Documentation should include
verification by the initials or signature of the
person receiving the request or conducting
triage;

•

document the required two-year dental
prophylaxis in an inmate’s dental records;

•

provide a system of chronic medical care for
inmates, incorporating standards of the
American Correctional Association and
National Commission on Correctional Health
Care for inmates’ chronic medical care;

•

establish in writing acceptable time frames for
submitting specialty consult requests to
MDOC’s Office of Specialty Care. For those
consult requests that fall outside the
acceptable time frame, Wexford should include
notations on the inmate’s medical record
regarding the status of the request and an
explanation of the delay;

•

segregate mental health records within an
inmate’s medical records by use of a separate
tab;

•

develop and utilize a uniform management
information system for logging chronic and
mental health care, including, at a minimum,
inmate name and number, facility location,
date, type of condition;

•

design and implement a computerized
management information system that allows
staff at all of the correctional facilities the
capability to track and monitor inmates’
chronic care and mental health appointments;

PEER Report #507

•

submit to MDOC for review and final approval
the names of all potential medical staff,
accompanied by evidence of professional
licensure, certification, and/or registration
prior to their employment; and,

•

secure all health records in sealed boxes and
all medications in sealed envelopes prior to
the transfer of inmates among correctional
facilities. Also, the contract should require
Wexford health care staff and MDOC
transportation officers to sign off on the
transfer record that lists all the medications
the inmate has en route, the number of pills en
route, and the number of doses en route.
Upon arrival at the receiving correctional
facility, Wexford health care staff should
inventory the contents of the inmate’s
medication envelope to ensure that the
contents reconcile with those listed on the
transfer record.

Routine Medical Care for Inmates
2. The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should ensure that Wexford conducts triage seven
days a week at all correctional facilities as is presently
required in the contract.

Specialty Medical Care for Inmates
3. The Mississippi Department of Corrections staff
should develop and adhere to written timeliness
standards for monitoring the actions that the
department should take during the portion of the
specialty care process that is within the parameters of
the department’s responsibility. For example, MDOC
should establish an acceptable time frame for
reviewing consult requests upon receipt from the
contractor and scheduling specialty appointments and
surgeries. Then, for those consult requests that fall
outside the acceptable time frame, MDOC should
include notations on the inmate’s medical record
regarding the status of the request and an explanation
of the delay.
4. MDOC should create a management information
system accessible to medical and dental providers and
directors at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility,
South Mississippi Correctional Institution, and

PEER Report #507

73

Mississippi State Penitentiary. This system should
incorporate action standards for the completion,
submission, receipt, and review of consult requests
and the scheduling of appointments and surgeries,
and should trigger an alert to responsible personnel if
the status of an inmate’s case is not checked within a
reasonable time frame, as established by Wexford and
MDOC in their timeliness standards. These standards
should account for the possibility of Wexford’s or
MDOC’s need to obtain additional information before
making decisions regarding the request and the
response time needed for such, as well as the
department’s prioritization of requests.

Issues with Medical Staffing
5. Wexford should periodically provide MDOC staff with
documentation of its formal recruitment plan to
attract and retain appropriately licensed health care
staff.
6. MDOC should require Wexford to develop a strategy
for ensuring that all agency nurses employed at one
of the state’s correctional facilities receive basic
orientation regarding provision of medical care in a
correctional environment prior to assuming their
duties.

Issues with Quality Assurance for Contract Compliance and Recordkeeping
7. For purposes of ensuring compliance with contractual
requirements, MDOC should require Wexford to
design and implement a verifiable management
information system that ensures that reports
submitted by Wexford to MDOC accurately reflect
information recorded on source documents--e. g., sick
call logs, chronic care logs.
8. MDOC should ensure that Wexford provides all
necessary medical services and maintains all medical
record documentation as required in its inmate
medical services contract with the department. Also,
in order to determine Wexford’s compliance with
contract provisions, MDOC should develop a formal
audit methodology that includes appropriate
statistical sampling to allow the department to
extrapolate the sample results to the entire
population.

74

PEER Report #507

MDOC’s FY 2007 Medical Expenditures
9. MDOC should make formal demand to Wexford for
the collection of liquidated damages provided for in
the contract for failing to adhere to contractual
requirements.
10. The State Auditor should investigate the department’s
overspending of its FY 2007 medical services
appropriation and consider taking any necessary
collection actions against MDOC personnel.

PEER Report #507

75

76

PEER Report #507

Appendix A: Population Sizes, Calculated Sample Sizes, and Actual Sample Sizes, for
all Three Parent Facilities Combined, January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007

Newly Admitted
Inmates
Sick Calls
Dental
Psychiatric Referrals*
Specialty Care**
Chronic Care***
Total

Population
Size
1,575

Calculated
Sample Size
314

Actual Sample
Size
313

Non-Audited
Visit Records
1

25,945
373
893
1,580
3,120
33,486

365
187
298
316
342
1,822

365
187
Non-audited
222
254
1,341

0
0
298
94
88
481

*Because the mental health visit records with psychiatric referral information were combined with
the regular medical visit record information, PEER concluded that the medical records with this
visit information were not auditable.
**The sample size for specialty care was reduced due to excluding emergency room visits and
follow-up specialty care appointments.
***The sample size for chronic care was reduced due to the movement of inmates and the transfer
of inmates to a facility that was not one of the three parent facilities.
NOTE:

The number of medical care visit records for each category is greater than the number of
inmates represented, since this number includes multiple visits of some inmates.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

PEER Report #507

77

Appendix B: Compliance Rates and Ranges for all Three Parent Facilities Combined,
January 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007
Inmate Intake

Sample
Size
# in
Compliance
Compliance
Rate
Error Rate
Range of
Compliance

Documentation
of Medical
Service Process
313

Initial Health
Assessment

Initial Dental
Screening

Dental
Exam

313

313

313

Psychiatric/
Mental Health
Screening
313

274

313

305

312

307

88%

100%

97%

99.7%

98%

5%
83-93%

5%
95-100%

5%
92-100%

5%
95-100%

5%
93-100%

Sick Call

Sample Size
# in Compliance
Indeterminate Records
Compliance Rate
Compliance Rate (best case)*
Error Rate
Range of Compliance
Range of Compliance (best case)*

Triage
365
122
21
33%
41%
5%
28-38%
36-46%

7-day
365
192
57
53%
68%
5%
48-58%
63-73%

Dental Prophylaxis
Sample Size
# in Compliance
Indeterminate Records
Compliance Rate
Compliance Rate (best case)*
Error Rate
Range of Compliance
Range of Compliance (best case)*

187
40
14
41%
48%
5%
36-46%
43-53%

*Includes all indeterminate records as if they were compliant.
NOTE:

The number of medical care visit records for each category is greater than the number of
inmates represented, since this number includes multiple visits of some inmates.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

78

PEER Report #507

Appendix C: Compliance Percentages for Inmate Intake, by Parent Facility

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
South
Mississippi
Correctional
Institution
Mississippi
State
Penitentiary
Overall
Compliance
Percentage

NOTES:

Inmates’
Understanding of
Access to Medical
Care

Initial Health
Assessment within
One Month of
Intake

Initial Dental
Screening within 7
Calendar Days of
Intake

Dental Exam
within One Month
of Intake

Psychiatric/
Mental
Health
Screening
within 5
Days of
Intake

84%

100%

98%

100%

96%

92%

100%

97%

100%

100%

86%

100%

97%

99%

98%

88%

100%

97%

99.7%

98%

All intake of state inmates into the state correctional system occurs at Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility. Inmates are then transferred to other state,
regional, and private facilities. The table above shows a breakdown of the
compliance percentages for the inmates’ medical records that were reviewed at
each parent facility during the review period of January 1, 2007, through May 31,
2007.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance rate
for all inmate intake medical service requirements between January 1, 2007, and
June 30, 2007.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

PEER Report #507

79

Appendix D: Compliance Percentages for Sick Call Triage, by Parent Facility

Sick Call Triage
Compliance
Sick Call Triage
Noncompliance
Sick Call Triage
Indeterminate
Total

NOTES:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
38%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

Overall Compliance
Percentage for All 3
Parent Facilities

36%

29%

33%

59%

62%

56%

59%

3%

2%

15%

8%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Sick call triage is the screening and classification of inmates’ health care
concerns to determine the priority of need and the appropriate level of
intervention.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance
rate between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007. In order to be considered
compliant, the sick call request must be picked up daily from the inmates and
triaged within twenty-four hours of the receipt.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being
either compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because inmates reentered the system and old records did not follow them, lack of dates on sick
call forms, and/or inmate medical records could not be located at the time of
review.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

80

PEER Report #507

Appendix E: Compliance Percentages for Sick Call 7-Day Physician Visit, by Parent
Facility

Sick Call 7-Day
Compliance
Sick Call 7-Day
Noncompliance
Sick Call 7-Day
Indeterminate
Total

NOTES:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
49%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

Overall Compliance
Percentage for All 3
Parent Facilities

66%

45%

53%

32%

30%

33%

32%

19%

4%

22%

15%

100%

100%

100%

100%

If an inmate’s medical condition warrants seeing a physician and the inmate
cannot be treated by a nurse, then the inmate is required to see a physician
within seven calendar days of the original sick call complaint.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance rate
for seven-day physician visits between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being
either compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because inmates reentered the system and old records did not follow them, lack of dates on sick
call forms, and/or inmate medical records could not be located at the time of
review.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

PEER Report #507

81

Appendix F: Compliance Percentages for 2-Year Dental Prophylaxis, by Parent
Facility

2 Year Dental
Prophylaxis
Compliance
2 Year Dental
Prophylaxis
Noncompliance
2 Year Dental
Prophylaxis
Indeterminate
Total

NOTE:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
60%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

27%

31%

Overall
Compliance
Percentage for All
3 Parent Facilities
41%

34%

58%

65%

52%

6%

15%

4%

7%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Every two years an inmate is required by the medical services contract to have a
dental prophylaxis. A dental prophylaxis is a basic dental cleaning performed
by the dentist.
MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance rate for
two-year dental prophylaxis visits between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being
either compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because of a lack of
dates for initial dental prophylaxis on dental forms.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

82

PEER Report #507

Appendix G: Compliance Rates and Ranges for Chronic Care, for all Three Parent
Facilities Combined

Sample Size
# in Compliance
Indeterminate Records
Compliance Rate
Compliance Rate (best
case)*
Error Rate
Range of Compliance
Range of Compliance (best
case)*

Visits
254
150
55
59%
81%

Treatment Plan
254
217
15
85%
91%

6-month Follow-up
254
193
17
76%
83%

6%
53-65%
75-87%

6%
79-91%
85-97%

6%
70-82%
77-87%

*Includes all indeterminate records as if they were compliant.
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

PEER Report #507

83

Appendix H: Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care 6-Month Visit, by Parent
Facility

Chronic Care 6Month Visit
Compliance
Chronic Care 6Month Visit
Noncompliance
Chronic Care 6Month Visit
Indeterminate
Total
NOTE:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
47%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

76%

61%

Overall
Compliance
Percentage for All
3 Parent Facilities
59%

27%

5%

21%

19%

26%

19%

18%

22%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Chronic care consists of conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, HIV, tuberculosis, or
seizures. Once an inmate is diagnosed with a chronic condition that requires ongoing
medical attention, the inmate must visit the physician within a reasonable amount of
time to re-evaluate the inmates’ condition. Wexford requires a ninety-day evaluation
time between chronic care visits and MDOC requires at least an annual evaluation, so
PEER chose six months as a reasonable time between chronic care visits.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance rate for all
medical areas within the contract. However, MDOC did not include chronic care in the
medical services contract, so PEER used the same 85% compliance rate that all other
medical care areas are held to when determining chronic care six-month visit
compliance.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being either
compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because of missing chronic care
information and missing dates for six-month chronic care visits.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

84

PEER Report #507

Appendix I: Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care 6-Month Physician Referral
Notation, by Parent Facility

Chronic Care 6Month
Physician
Referral
Notation
Compliance
Chronic Care 6Physician
Referral
Notation
Noncompliance
Chronic Care 6Month
Physician
Referral
Notation
Indeterminate
Total

NOTE:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
64%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi State
Penitentiary

Overall Compliance
Percentage for All 3
Parent Facilities

88%

80%

76%

22%

10%

18%

17%

14%

2%

2%

7%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Once an inmate has a chronic care visit, the attending physician is required to notate
on the chronic care form in the medical records the approximate time within six
months that the inmate needs to return for a follow-up visit to re-evaluate the chronic
condition.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance rate for all
medical areas within the contract. However, MDOC did not include chronic care in the
medical services contract, so PEER used the same 85% compliance rate that all other
medical care areas are held to when determining chronic care six-month physician
referral compliance.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being either
compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because of missing chronic care
information and because some records were mental health records.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

PEER Report #507

85

Appendix J: Compliance Percentages for Chronic Care Medication Treatment Plan,
by Parent Facility

Chronic Care
Medication
Treatment Plan
Compliance
Chronic Care
Medication
Treatment Plan
Noncompliance
Chronic Care
Medication
Treatment Plan
Indeterminate
Total

NOTES:

Central
Mississippi
Correctional
Facility
84%

South Mississippi
Correctional
Institution

Mississippi
State
Penitentiary

Overall Compliance
Percentage for All 3
Parent Facilities

83%

89%

85%

2%

15%

11%

9%

14%

2%

0%

6%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Inmates with chronic care conditions are required by national standards and
the medical services contract to have treatment plans. Because chronic
conditions require different treatment plans, PEER used the two most
common elements to all chronic conditions for determining compliance with
treatment plans. These include the follow-up visits and medication.
The MDOC/Wexford medical services contract requires an 85% compliance
rate for all medical areas within the contract. However, MDOC did not
include chronic care in the medical services contract, so PEER used the same
85% compliance rate that all other medical care areas are held to when
determining chronic care medication treatment plan compliance.
Indeterminate records are records that PEER could not determine as being
either compliant or noncompliant. These records existed because of missing
chronic care information and because some records were mental health
records.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC inmates’ medical records.

86

PEER Report #507

Appendix L: Number of Licensed, Registered, or Certified Medical Staff Employed
by Wexford at the Three Parent Facilities Combined, As of October 29, 2007

Licensure Status By Position
Number
Number
Properly
without
Licensed,
Appropriate
Certified, or
Credentials
Registered
Positions Assigned

Percentage
with
Appropriate
Credentials

Position Titles
Physicians

10

10

0

100.00%

Physician
Assistants

1

1

0

100.00%

Psychiatrists

7

7

0

100.00%

Nurse
Practitioners

7

7

0

100.00%

LPNs

135

135

0

100.00%

RNs

109

109

0

100.00%

Radiology
Technicians

7

4

3

57.14%*

X-ray
Technicians

1

1

0

100.00%

EMTs

6

6

0

100.00%

Pharmacists

4

4

0

100.00%

Pharmacy
Technicians

5

4

1

80.00%

Dentists

9

9

0

100.00%

Dental
Hygienists

1

1

0

100.00%

Dental
Assistants

9

8

1

88.89%

Physical
Therapists

2

2

0

100.00%

Physical Therapy
Assistants

1

1

0

100.00%

314

309

5

98.41%

Total

*Percentage includes one radiology technician position at CMCF that could not be verified due to
incomplete information provided by the facility.
SOURCE: PEER analysis of MDOC and Wexford Health Sources employee register.

90

PEER Report #507

PEER Committee Staff
Max Arinder, Executive Director
James Barber, Deputy Director
Ted Booth, General Counsel
Evaluation
David Pray, Division Manager
Linda Triplett, Division Manager
Larry Whiting, Division Manager
Chad Allen
Antwyn Brown
Kim Cummins
Brian Dickerson
Lonnie Edgar
Barbara Hamilton
Matthew Holmes
Karen Land
Kevin Mayes
Sarah Resavy
Brad Rowland
Jennifer Sebren

94

Editing and Records
Ava Welborn, Chief Editor/Archivist and Executive Assistant
Tracy Bobo
Administration
Mary McNeill, Accounting and Office Manager
Sandra Haller
Rosana Slawson
Gale Taylor
Data Processing
Larry Landrum, Systems Analyst
Corrections Audit
Louwill Davis, Corrections Auditor

PEER Report #507