Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Data Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise County approves data‑sharing MOU with Arizona Complete Health to continue inmate care
Summary
The Cochise County Jail District board approved a memorandum of understanding and a separate data‑sharing agreement with Arizona Complete Health on Aug. 5 to allow timely exchange of records when enrolled individuals are booked into or released from county jail.
The Cochise County Jail District Board of Directors on Aug. 5 approved a memorandum of understanding and a companion data‑sharing agreement with Arizona Complete Health to enable timely exchange of health‑care enrollment and custody status information for people enrolled in the managed‑care plan who are booked into or released from county jail. The board voted to approve both items; each motion passed 2–0 with one member not voting.
The memorandum and data‑sharing agreement are intended to create systems for “timely data exchange that is necessary for coordination and continuity of care,” said Miss Kennedy, an Arizona Complete Health representative who addressed the board. “This will essentially allow for the exchange of data whenever an individual who is enrolled with Arizona Complete Health and receiving services in the community is booked into jail. When they come into jail, then, their provider will be able to see that they are in custody and then provide us with records in order to continue that care. And we'll also be able to know whenever they're being released from custody so that they can continue the care in the community.”
A member of the public, Tricia Geradette of Sierra Vista, asked to speak during the jail district portion of the meeting and raised a concern for the record: “The parent company of Arizona Complete Health is Centene Corporation. And, very recently, last month, a class action lawsuit was filed against them.” Geradette said the lawsuit “may or may not be relevant to how they'll do their job at the jail,” but she wanted the board to be aware of it. The board allowed the comment; no further discussion or follow‑up actions on the lawsuit were recorded in the jail district meeting minutes.
Chairman Antinori and Supervisor Gomez moved and seconded the motions to approve the MOU and the data‑sharing agreement; each passed by voice vote with two ayes and one not voting. The board did not discuss implementation details, effective dates, or data security provisions during the recorded jail district portion of the meeting.
No statutory citations or state rules were cited during the discussion; the class‑action litigation referenced by a public commenter was noted only as a public comment and not as a basis for board action.
