Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bracken County court approves preventive rabies vaccinations for animal-control officers after insurance clarification requested
Summary
Following a presentation on costs and clinical differences between clinic and health-department protocols, the court voted to approve preventive rabies vaccinations for two animal-control officers, directing staff to check with the county insurer first about potential coverage or fraud concerns.
Bracken County Fiscal Court approved preventive rabies vaccinations for two county animal-control officers after a detailed presentation on cost, dosing and insurance implications.
An Animal Control Officer explained available options and a cost estimate provided by a private clinic: two initial preventive doses plus a booster in subsequent years would cost about $1,311 per person, with an estimated three-year total for two officers of $3,933.54. The presenter and others warned that if the county submits those preventive shots through an employee’s personal insurance and the insurer later treats it as a work-related procedure, the insurer could raise a claim of improper billing; that uncertainty prompted magistrates to ask staff to seek clarification from the county insurer before final processing.
Judge T. Garden and other court members discussed comparative options; the health department’s preventive regimen (three initial doses versus two-dose clinic regimen plus periodic boosters) was discussed as an alternative. The court settled the procedural question by placing a motion on the floor after Tony (county staff) agreed to contact the insurer for guidance.
Magistrate Craig Miller moved to make the rabies vaccinations mandatory for the animal-control officers and to proceed after insurance clarification; the motion was seconded by David Kelch and passed unanimously by roll call. The motion directs staff to obtain written confirmation from the county’s insurance provider about whether the preventive vaccinations should be processed by the county or handled differently to avoid possible claims issues.
The court did not specify a funding source change in the meeting; the cost figures were discussed as estimates and will be revisited if insurance guidance changes the county’s payment approach.
