Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Clinic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shared clinic touted as employee benefit and cost-saver by presenter at county meeting
Summary
A private vendor described a shared on-site clinic model serving Robertson County, Springfield and the school system, saying the clinic avoids insurance billing, charges about $13 per employee per month and has generated stated claims-offset savings.
Todd Garlington, a representative of Medical Analysis, told the Robertson County Commission on May 19 that his company has run a shared-site primary and occupational medicine clinic serving the county, the city of Springfield and the Robertson County School System for about four years. Garlington said the clinic has recorded roughly 16,000 visits and operates on a non-claims model: employers pay a per-employee-per-month fee and staff do not bill patients’ insurance for clinic visits.
Garlington described the membership fee as “about $13 a month” per employee, and said that model lets the county and school system avoid claims costs for routine exams, work-comp injuries, some lab work and on-site dispensed medications. He said that, working with the county’s insurance broker Hub, Medical Analysis calculates a net savings for the county on the order of about $150,000 per year after clinic expenses. Garlington also said the program has handled DOT physicals and occupational-health visits, and that the clinic stocks low-cost medications on site so those prescriptions do not generate pharmacy claims.
Garlington gave an overview of the clinic’s history: he said Medical Analysis started discussions roughly on the heels of the COVID pandemic and that the Springfield shared-site clinic has operated nearly four years. He said the program also manages sites for other employers in the Southeast and that the company manages roughly 35–40 clinics regionally. The presenter told commissioners the model produces savings by preventing routine visits and many prescriptions from being billed to group insurance plans.
Commissioners asked no detailed follow-up during the presentation; the commission did not take any formal vote on a contract or authorization during the same agenda item. Garlington’s remarks were presented as a vendor briefing and request for continued cooperation; he did not ask the commission to authorize a specific contract or appropriation during his presentation.
Garlington’s description and figures were presented orally to the commission; the county did not provide detailed contract or audit documents during the meeting that would verify the broker-calculated savings to an independent standard. The commission may ask staff to place any contract or procurement item on a future agenda if it wants formal authorization or a written review of the clinic arrangement.
