Shawnee Mission board hears seventh-year report on Priority 1 health center; district cites increased use and strong cost-avoidance

The Shawnee Mission Board of Education on Jan. 22 received a data-heavy annual review of the district’s Priority 1 health center, which serves employees and covered family members and reported increased visits, expanded behavioral-health hours and an estimated multi-year cost avoidance.

The Priority 1 health center’s seventh year of operations ran February–July 2024, district staff said. ‘‘The health center continues to be a tremendous asset for our district and our district employees,’’ said Erin Eason, national director of clinical consulting practice for CBIZ, the center’s management partner, summarizing utilization and quality metrics.

The health center recorded 6,860 visits in the year reviewed, a 16% increase from the prior year, Eason said. Mental-health visits numbered about 1,060 and board presenters said engagement among employees rose to 65%. The center reported an average medical provider visit of 31 minutes versus a cited national primary-care average near 18 minutes.

The district and CBIZ emphasized the clinical and financial effects of that engagement. Using a conservative modeling approach, presenters estimated roughly $11.5 million in cost avoidance for the period reviewed and a year‑7 return on investment of about 6.9 to 1; since the center opened they said ROI is approximately 4.8 to 1. Total center operating cost in year 7 was described as just under $1.8 million.

District staff said expanded services have been added in response to demand. In September 2023, the board approved 24 additional behavioral‑health hours, bringing counseling availability to approximately 54 hours per week; staff also added eight primary‑care provider hours before the school year began.

Board members asked about benchmarking and data sources. ‘‘Do we have any data that would indicate how we do compared to other districts with comparable circumstances?’’ asked board member Westbrook, noting the value of comparisons for best practices. CBIZ and district presenters said benchmarking is possible but complicated by differing management partners and measurement methods; they offered to pursue comparative data from the center’s management partner, Marathon.

Board members also asked about how biometric and utilization data are shared. Presenters said biometric screening vendors and Marathon’s analytics are integrated with the health-center records (with employee consent) and claims data from the district’s Blue Cross plan are used for aggregate comparisons and the 24% lower-cost figure reported for engaged participants.

District staff cautioned the cost‑avoidance figure reflects modeled savings, not cash on hand, because avoided costs primarily reduce forecasts for high‑cost claim development rather than producing direct reserve balances.

The presentation included patient feedback gathered in post‑visit surveys; Eason read several verbatim comments in which employees praised quick scheduling, provider time and the availability of behavioral health. Board members said those firsthand responses, combined with utilization and financial metrics, support continuing the program.

The presenters said the district will seek additional benchmarking information from Marathon and other partners and will return with more comparative data if available.

Ending: The board took no action on the health‑center report; presenters said the update will inform budget and benefits discussions going forward.