Key Points: 

• Judge must choose qualified candidate to serve as prison health care receiver 

• Plaintiffs, department submit candidates with extensive corrections experience 

• Prison advocates stress need for independence, authority, balance in receiver 

A court order placing the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry’s health care system under independent receivership has left state officials with one important question: Who is up to the task? 

Attorneys for the incarcerated submitted their short list of candidates on April 20, with the department offering up a single candidate to assume control of prison health care operations. 

With credentials, resumes and relevant background for each candidate now in the court record, a judge must now decide what makes a good receiver, and who is the right fit to assume control of the health of more than 25,000 people incarcerated by the state. 

“It definitely is going to involve someone who is not afraid to stand up to possibly strong opposition, or even political intervention,” Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, said. “It’s going to have to be someone who’s immune to those influences and who will do their job and report and understand that their boss is the judge, not the Department of corrections or the governor or the Arizona Legislature.” 

After 14 years of litigation and a string of court orders finding repeated failures to significantly improve health care delivery in the state prison system, federal district Judge Roslyn Silver granted a motion to appoint a receiver. 

In March, the parties submitted proposals on the scope, powers and duties of a prospective receiver. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued a receiver should assume the same access and powers over administration, management, operations, staffing and financing as the department’s director, including over the department’s private health care vendor, NaphCare. 

Plaintiffs further asserted a need for the receiver to participate in the state budgeting process, though with a pathway to override a lack of funding from the Legislature via a court order if necessary. 

Per the department’s proposal, the receiver would participate in the budgeting process, undergo annual audits and submit reports on progress every four months. 

Silver directed the parties to submit up to five receiver candidates each. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs put up two. 

Kellie Wasko started in correctional health more than 25 years ago as a registered nurse in the Idaho Department of Corrections. 

She spent 16 years as a health services administrator, an associate warden, a warden, an assistant director of prisons, a clinical director and health authority before serving as the deputy executive director and health authority in the Colorado Department of Corrections. 

Wasko then spent about three years as the chief executive officer and president of Correctional Health Partners, a private company providing medical management and administration to jails and correction agencies. 

She then served as secretary of corrections for the South Dakota Department of Corrections — on appointment from former governor turned former U.S. Department of Health Services Secretary Kristi Noem — where she oversaw operations of eight prisons, 14 parole officers, 1,100 staff, 3,900 inmates and 4,000 parolees. 

Wasko resigned in October amid controversy over the construction of a proposed new $650 million, 1,500-bed prison. She also caught criticism from a South Dakota state lawmaker and former secretary of corrections for an alleged “degradation of staff and inmate safety systemwide” during her term. 

In her resignation letter, Wasko centered achievements during her time at the helm, including an increase in officer pay, a decrease in officer vacancy rates and improved health care. 

“I’m proud of the work that has been done,” Wasko wrote. 

Since departing her role as secretary, Wasko has worked as an independent consultant in health care and a subject matter expert in court. 

The plaintiffs’ second candidate, Leann Bertsch, led the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 15 years. During her time at the prison she focused on long-term rehabilitation, and she has since been recognized nationally and internationally for her work reforming the state’s prisons. 

She now works as senior vice president for the Corrections Division of the Management and Training Corporation, a private company overseeing management and operation of contracts across international, federal, state and county governments. 

“Both candidates have extensive experience working in, reorganizing, and leading complex correctional systems,” Sophie Hart, an attorney for Prison Law Office, wrote. “Both have expressed their willingness to serve as Receiver in this matter.”

The department recommended Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the current director of criminal justice for Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. 

In propping up Chambers-Smith, the department made note of her work to resolve a 2003 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care in Ohio prisons. 

Over the course of a five-year settlement agreement, Chambers-Smith, then chief of the bureau of medical services, worked to implement required reforms to medical staffing, training, medication and mortality reviews. 

Attorneys for ADCRR noted her ability to work with private vendors in Ohio and experience transitioning private health care staff to public health care staff. 

Beyond working in health care at the state prisons, Chambers-Smith also served as the deputy director of administration, in which she handled prison budgets, and as the chief operating officer and general manager for payment services for JPay Inc, or Securus, a major corrections communication and financial services vendor. 

“I am confident in my ability to serve as a trusted agent of the court, providing independent oversight, (identifying) risks, and supporting ADCRR in achieving and sustaining compliance,” Chambers-Smith wrote in her cover letter to the court. “I am committed to ensuring that systems not only meet legal requirements but also deliver safe, effective, and humane care.” 

Plaintiffs and the department now have ten days to respond to the other’s proposed candidates, with a court assessment to follow. 

The department is already pursuing an appeal of the order granting the motion for a receiver but agreed to pause any proceedings in the 9th Circuit until Silver issues an order on appointing a receiver and defining powers and duties. 

In a recent filing to the appellate court, attorneys for the department made clear an intent to appeal future orders appointing and further defining the receivership. 

As Silver now reviews candidates and proposed scopes, Hamm noted the need for any prospective receiver to have a strong hold on the health care delivery in prison and to generally keep an even keel approach to the position’s inherent power. 

“Obviously you don’t want someone that will abuse the power, but you also don’t want anyone who will be afraid to use it,” Hamm said. “There’s gonna have to be a very informed balance.” 

Hamm said her “measuring stick” for any receiver’s performance will be the number of complaints sent in from inmates and their families on health care concerns, noting at present, the organization is averaging around 20 to 30 complaints a week. 

“Right now, it’s a big wait and see, and we absolutely remain hopeful,” Hamm said.