Marsh proposes on-site clinic for Hardee County school employees, projects roughly $800,000 in annual savings

Hardee County School Board members on Thursday heard a presentation from Marsh Care Delivery on a proposed on-site clinic for school employees that the vendor said would both reduce the district’s health-care spending and eliminate most employee out‑of‑pocket costs for services delivered inside the clinic.

"Today, we have Matt Susan from, Marsh Care Delivery," Superintendent Bennett said in introducing the presenter. Marsh’s representative told the board that the plan rests on two core promises: guaranteed savings to the district and no out‑of‑pocket costs for employees for care provided inside the clinic. "No out of pocket, no deductibles, no coinsurance," the presenter said when describing services delivered in the clinic.

Why it matters: Marsh said the clinic model combines on‑site primary care, in‑clinic diagnostics and pharmacy integration with direct contracting for high‑cost services such as MRIs and specialty drugs. The vendor presented a district‑specific projection — using the district’s 2025 claims — that yielded an estimated net savings of roughly $803,000 in the first year after accounting for clinic operating costs. Marsh cautioned that those numbers are projections subject to formal RFP responses and final guarantees.

What the presenter told the board: Marsh said its modeling conservatively assumed 40% employee participation but noted fleet‑wide experience typically shows 50–60% and that higher participation would increase guaranteed savings. On pharmacy, Marsh cited substantial savings opportunities for GLP‑1 and other specialty drugs through direct manufacturer contracting and medication‑management efforts. The presenter also flagged that a small share of employees — "7 or 8%" — typically drive the bulk of plan spending, and that early intervention could reduce those high‑cost claims.

On operations and services, Marsh described 30–60 minute initial visits, same‑ or next‑day appointments, on‑site lab and imaging coordination, and mobile/home infusion options for episodes such as cancer infusions. Marsh said clinics can be built on district property or repurposed existing space and that construction fees can often be avoided depending on vendor proposals.

Costs and contracts: The presenter said a full clinic model was modeled at about $80–$90 per member per month and that the district would generally sign a three‑year contract; Marsh said there would be a 60‑day out clause to exit if the clinic underperformed. The presenter also said Fleet would often hold a master contract and bolt districts on as exhibits, which could reduce the need for each district to negotiate separate provider contracts.

Board questions and concerns: Board members pressed the presenter on precise cost assumptions, the metric used for some line items and how the vendor would recruit and retain clinicians in a local care‑desert. The presenter said vendors typically recruit locally when practical and use fleet scale and pay differentials to attract clinicians; he also said the vendor would provide active oversight and could replace underperforming providers quickly. On workers’ compensation, Marsh said routing claims through the clinic often reduces workers’ comp costs but left the formal decision to require clinic first‑use to the board.

Next steps: Marsh said RFPs for participating counties would be posted imminently, proposals would be returned in about two weeks, and the vendor expected to present options at a special meeting or at the district’s May 14 meeting. Marsh set a target opening for the clinic of Oct. 1 if the board proceeds but emphasized those dates depend on procurement outcomes.

The board did not vote on the proposal during the workshop; members asked Marsh to return with formal RFP responses and supporting documentation before any contract decision.

Ending: Superintendent Bennett and board members thanked the presenter, and the workshop adjourned at 5:02 p.m.