Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wellness Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews analysis of a possible second employee wellness center; staff cautions about operating shortfall
Summary
Staff presented Premise Health’s analysis showing demand and high utilization at the district wellness center but an ROI below 1.0 (0.9), implying a roughly $300,000 annual subsidy; capital costs for a second site were estimated at $4–6 million, with options to alter service mix to include urgent-care-style access.
Todd Haber, presenting an operational and financial review, told the Granite School District board that the district’s on-site wellness center — opened in 2019 and operated by Premise Health under contract — delivers a broad range of services to employees at no point-of-service charge. He said the clinic’s top visit types are primary care and physical therapy, and that utilization is at or near capacity.
Haber summarized the vendor’s penetration and utilization metrics: about 28% of covered lives used the clinic and the facility is operating at roughly 93–95% utilization, which staff said indicates demand constrained by appointment capacity rather than lack of need. He said Premise’s attribution-based ROI model, reviewed by Milliman, estimates the clinic’s ROI at about 0.9 — below the break-even benchmark of 1.0. "Anything below a dollar means that we're subsidizing the program," he said, describing an implied shortfall of about $300,000 when contract operating expense (~$3,200,000 annually) is compared with estimated avoided costs.
Board members and staff debated how to weigh the numeric ROI against qualitative benefits. One board member noted the clinic’s convenience — early/late hours and Saturday access — and recruitment value, calling those benefits "invaluable" for employees who otherwise would miss class time or work. Another member emphasized that premium-savings and the health-fund structure, not general operating funds, pay for the clinic; Haber explained the district models premium-rate factors and that approximately a one percentage-point premium-rate change could create funding for a second contract.
Staff presented options for a second facility: replicate the existing model or shift to more urgent-care-style capacity to address same-day visits, workers’ compensation needs and mandated testing. Potential capital costs to build or renovate a second site were estimated at $4–6 million; the district currently set aside about $6 million in general-fund capital for facility-side expenses. Haber said Premise is interested in a second site but that the district would likely front capital costs and contract for operations.
The board did not make a final decision on a second center but agreed staff should continue modeling service scope, location and funding options. The session ended when the board moved into an executive session for real-estate business.
