Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Health Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler County Schools discusses Marathon Health contract, data sharing, marketing and opt‑out process
Summary
Board members and Marathon Health discussed the vendor's requirement for an eligibility file, use of Social Security numbers, marketing authority and an opt‑out process; staff will seek contract language changes and notify employees before final approval.
Flagler County School Board and Marathon Health representatives reviewed a proposed contract for an on‑site health center, focusing on what employee data Marathon would receive, how Marathon would use that information for marketing and verification, and the district's options for limiting or changing the language before final approval.
The discussion centered on an "eligibility file" Marathon requests that would include the names of eligible employees, dependents enrolled in the plan, contact information and, in the contract draft, Social Security numbers. Micah Belkon, client success manager for Marathon Health, told the board that Marathon uses Social Security numbers to streamline member verification and reduce account duplication, and that the company holds HITRUST certification for its data security practices. "The reason that we do require a lot more information like Social Security numbers is that it just improves the member experience," Belkon said.
Board members and legal counsel flagged privacy and notification concerns. Board attorney John Delaney said the district may be legally permitted to share the eligibility file as drafted but recommended stronger communication to employees. "The adoption of this agreement and saying that you're participating in this plan as an employee does that purpose," Delaney said, but added that the district could go "above and beyond" to notify members.
Board members repeatedly asked whether sharing the file required employee authorization, and whether employees could opt out of having their information shared. Marathon said eligible members (employees and covered dependents enrolled in the district plan) would be included in the eligibility file; people not enrolled in the district plan would not be shared. Belkon said some clients remove Social Security numbers from the file to reduce sensitivity, at the cost of making enrollment verification more laborious. "We can remove Social Security numbers. We certainly do that for some of our clients," he said.
Members also questioned who controls marketing contact to employees. The contract language in section 4.6 currently says that if the client requires additional customization outside Marathon's built‑in marketing parameters, the client would be responsible for additional costs. Board members asked to make explicit that any additional, paid marketing must be approved by the district. Delaney recommended revising the wording to make that approval explicit.
Other substantive points included: (a) a $51,000 monthly baseline fee that covers certain standard services and some marketing; (b) the district can require Marathon to coordinate marketing with district communications; (c) charges for visits by members enrolled in high‑deductible plans are client decisions, subject to IRS guidance on fair market value; Marathon said typical nonpreventive visit fees clients set are often in the $20–$25 range and that participation drops when fees rise above about $40.
No formal contract vote occurred in this workshop. The board gave staff direction to negotiate specific language changes and to return with amended contract language for board approval. Delaney and staff will pursue amending the marketing approval wording, pursue removal of Social Security numbers from the eligibility file (if feasible), and prepare a communication and opt‑out process to be included in annual enrollment materials. Staff also said employees who opt out of sharing will effectively opt out of the Marathon service because Marathon requires an identifiable eligibility list to provide care.
Board members emphasized that any employee notification should clearly explain what data will be shared, how it will be used, and how employees can contact HR with concerns. Marathon said it does not plan to contact employees independently without coordination, and that the company can accommodate restrictions on using district contact data for marketing if the district requests it.
Next steps specified by the board and staff: legal review of contract language, redraft to make marketing approvals explicit, consider removing Social Security numbers from the eligibility file, prepare an employee notice and opt‑out procedure, and return the revised agreement to the board for final approval.
