Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Wellness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee debates Ochsner digital-medicine contract amid questions about redundancy and ROI
Summary
Personnel committee members questioned a proposed two‑year, $250,000 renewal for an Ochsner digital‑medicine program—citing overlap with an existing UMR program, uncertain enrollment and variable device costs—and asked staff to seek doctor feedback and consider a one‑month or one‑year alternative before passing a multi‑year commitment.
Miss Brown (S13) presented a proposed renewal of the Ochsner Digital Medicine contract, describing it as a supplemental employee-wellness offering that can cost about $55 per person per month for a single program and $75 for two programs. "So it's 55 if they do 1 program, and it's 75 if they do 2 programs," Brown said, adding that enrollment fluctuates and the highest recent enrollment approached 200 employees.
Several committee members pushed back on cost and redundancy. One committee member (S7) said the district already provides similar services through UMR as part of negotiated medical fees and called the Ochsner option "much more costly" and potentially redundant. "It's redundant and it's much more costly than something we already have," a committee member said.
Supporters argued the Ochsner product offers different capabilities, including EPIC integration so clinicians in the Ochsner/LCMC network can see device readings in real time, which the board’s embedded UMR program does not. A staff presenter (S8) described the EPIC linkage as a key difference and said the Ochsner program can feed results directly into a member’s electronic health record for clinician review.
Board members also questioned the $100,000 figure referenced as an illustrative cost for standalone programs: staff said that amount was a ballpark estimate of what those services might cost if negotiated separately rather than embedded in the district’s medical-fee package. The committee discussed options including a one‑year renewal with additional doctor feedback, a month‑to‑month holdover, or tabling the item for further review at the next board retreat.
No final contract adoption was recorded in the committee conversation reviewed. Staff committed to seek additional clinical feedback, to scrub and present enrollment and outcome data, and to report back to the committee with clearer ROI and device-cost breakdowns before the full Board acts.
