Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Wellness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff weigh wellness voucher and mental‑health program using insurance refund funds
Summary
Human Resources proposed a wellness voucher program and optional employee mental‑health service (licensed counseling/text support) funded in part by an annual PHP refund; commissioners asked for a staff survey and usage metrics before approving.
County HR presented a proposal Feb. 10 to reintroduce a wellness program for employees that would include a wellness voucher (reimbursement for gym gear, wellness items, or memberships) and an optional mental‑health service package for all county staff.
HR staff said Duchesne County received a PHP insurance refund of $101,664 for the prior year and that portion of that refund could be used to pilot a wellness voucher (suggested $200 per employee) and to purchase an employee mental‑health benefit modeled on a program first responders already use. The “best” mental‑health option described would provide short‑term counseling (five sessions), unlimited text and call access to clinicians, wellness resources, legal and financial consultations, manager training and a dedicated client success manager.
HR estimated a $200 wellness voucher for the county’s approximately 217 employees would cost about $43,400; pairing that with the mental‑health program (the “better/best” option) would bring the total to roughly $57,000 — within the PHP refund amount presented.
Commissioners and HR discussed program design details, including avoiding the past problem of prepaying full gym memberships that employees then left during the year and the county did not recoup. Commissioners favored a model that reimburses based on documented use or provides vouchers for eligible purchases (walking shoes, home exercise equipment) rather than fronting full annual memberships without usage safeguards. Several suggested surveying employees first to gauge likely participation and to test family eligibility; others recommended usage reporting from the mental‑health vendor so the county can measure uptake.
No final funding decision was made; commissioners directed staff to send a survey to employees, return with vendor usage data and proposed administrative rules (eligibility, allowable purchases, reimbursement timelines) for a future meeting.
