[{"_1":2,"_84":-5,"_85":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6592821,"mediaKeyId","2756345-f58f7e9b200d3e268a3026afdaf46dd9","parentId",2756345,"title","Board approves RFP award to GBS for employee health‑benefit consulting after trustees demand transparency","audioSeconds",1864,"startMs",842000,"endMs",2706000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2756345-f58f7e9b200d3e268a3026afdaf46dd9&start=842&end=2706","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6592821/Utah/Board-approves-RFP-award-to-GBS-for-employee-healthbenefit-consulting-after-trustees-demand-transparency","mediaUrl","author","Washington County School District","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","The Washington County School District Board of Education voted March 26 to award its employee benefits consulting RFP to GBS, a benefits consulting firm, after trustees said the firm committed to greater transparency, proactive plan‑design recommendations and disaggregated data analysis.

Board member Raymond P. Ward moved to award the RFP to GBS; a trustee identified in the transcript as Member Cox seconded the motion. The vote was taken by voice and the chair called for ayes; the transcript records \"Aye\" and no opposition was voiced. The board recorded the award by voice vote during the open meeting.

District staff and trustees described the reasons for returning to GBS, which previously worked with the district. Presenters said GBS offers stronger disaggregated data support than other bidders, and that capability enables the firm to identify high‑utilization individual cases in the district's claims data. In the meeting, staff gave a specific example GBS had used with a different client: an individual who visited emergency care 37 times in a year; disaggregated data, staff said, allowed consultants to identify that person and offer case management rather than relying on aggregate claims summaries.

Trustees told GBS representatives at a follow‑up meeting that the district expects firm recommendations, clear risk explanations and options ranked by likely fiscal and utilization outcomes. \"We want you to be very proactive in plan design,\" one trustee said, adding the district expects consultants to present a prioritized set of alternatives with likely costs and any commission or override arrangements disclosed in advance.

GBS agreed to provide ongoing reporting and to disclose any compensation tied to carriers, including overrides; staff said the firm committed to a sign‑off process in which the district would review and approve any disclosed arrangements before the district accepted them. The board also discussed the potential range of total consultant compensation: presenters said consultants' normal override rates were about 1 percent of the book of business, and staff estimated the consultant compensation for a $30 million book of business could be in the low hundreds of thousands; staff said GBS indicated a guaranteed minimum of $45,000 in one scenario. Trustees said they will monitor the firm closely and expect regular updates and compliance support such as legal advice on benefit changes.

The award includes expectations that GBS will use disaggregated data to identify high users, recommend plan designs that incentivize appropriate utilization (for example, reduce unnecessary emergency‑room use and optimize pharmaceutical spend) and provide proactive compliance guidance. Board members said they will hold the firm to those commitments and will sign off on disclosures and incentives as part of the district's oversight.

Motion: award RFP to GBS (moved by Board member Raymond P. Ward; second by Member Cox). Outcome: approved by voice vote; no opposition recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Working Session Open Session 3/26","oneSentenceSummary","The Washington County School District board voted to award a health‑benefits consulting RFP to GBS, with trustees requiring disclosures, regular updates and sign‑offs on commissions or overrides before implementation; board members cited data disaggregation and proactive plan design as reasons for the choice.","taxTitle","Washington County School District, Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",65999,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":44,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6592825,"School board discusses Title I reallocation; some schools face reduced per‑pupil discretionary funds",779,63000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2756345-f58f7e9b200d3e268a3026afdaf46dd9&start=63&end=842","/articles/6592825/Utah/School-board-discusses-Title-I-reallocation-some-schools-face-reduced-perpupil-discretionary-funds","Washington County School District trustees and staff on March 26 reviewed changes to how Title I discretionary funds will be distributed for the 2018–19 school year, including cutting one low‑ranked school from Title I allocations and reducing per‑pupil discretionary amounts for others.

District staff described a tiered per‑pupil allocation (PPA) model that was used in 2017–18 and how the district proposes to modify it for the coming year. \"We don't want to pull the rug totally out from under these schools,\" a board member said, describing the intent to spread available Title I dollars more broadly rather than eliminate support for many schools.

Kathy, a district staff member who presented the spreadsheet of allocations, said the district previously used three PPA tiers: $500, $450 and $350 per poverty student in 2017–18. For 2018–19 the proposed PPA amounts are $425 for the top tier, $375 for the middle tier and $200 for the bottom tier. Kathy said those per‑pupil amounts represent discretionary dollars; other Title I resources such as funding for substitutes, before/after‑school programs and a site coordinator remain in place.

Kathy and other staff said the district initially recommended removing four bottom‑tier schools from Title I discretionary allocations but, after discussion, chose to keep all but Enterprise on reduced funding for at least one additional year. Staff said Enterprise had ranked lowest for three consecutive years and therefore lost discretionary Title I funds entirely under the proposed plan.

Staff noted that the redistribution required taking small amounts from many schools to leave funds for bottom‑tier schools that otherwise would have been cut. The presentation identified example schools by name and rank changes: Red Mountain moved from an eighth to a tenth position in rank order and therefore saw a reduction in its allocation; Water Canyon was identified as receiving a smaller percentage cut than the most affected schools. Board members asked whether the affected schools had been informed; staff replied they had shared the information with principals and had not yet received widespread formal complaints.

Trustees and staff discussed program additions funded from Title I discretionary savings, including hiring six grade‑level specialists and funding three days of additional training for Title I teachers, as well as retaining districtlevel supports such as I‑Ready software and a half‑time technology position funded by Title I.

Board members asked how long it might take to reach the district's stated goal of limiting the number of Title I schools to 10. Staff said the timeline would depend on multi‑year poverty counts and could require schools to remain in the bottom tier for at least two consecutive years before losing funding. They also noted that boundary changes and shifting demographics can change rankings from year to year.

The discussion concluded with trustees endorsing the compromise approach to keep most schools on Title I support at reduced per‑pupil allocations while removing one persistently low‑ranked school from discretionary funding. There was no formal motion or recorded vote on Title I allocation during this portion of the meeting.","Washington County School District trustees reviewed a plan to redistribute Title I discretionary funding across tiers of schools, keeping most schools on Title I support while cutting one school entirely and reducing per‑pupil amounts at others.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves RFP award to GBS for employee health‑benefit consulting after trustees demand transparency

School board discusses Title I reallocation; some schools face reduced per‑pupil discretionary funds