Report: 16% of County Employees Depressed

Depression diagnoses afflict 16.2 percent of Loudoun County employees according to the county’s health insurance provider Cigna, well above the 10.8 percent of people with the diagnosis the company normally sees.

The Board of Supervisors’ finance committee’s review of Loudoun’s health insurance plan also included a look at some areas of focus for the next year. Those include increased virtual care, where patients can see a doctor without leaving home, which is also on average a cheaper visit, and trying to encourage more employees to get annual dental checkups to avoid more serious treatment down the road. Loudoun public employees already get an annual checkup more often than the average—about 50 percent of employees had a well visit in the past year, compared to the insurer’s norm of 47 percent. And a lower-than-norm percentage of employees with chronic conditions made insurance claims to deal with them, 46.5 percent of employees with chronic conditions seeking care compared to the norm of 53.3 percent.

The county government also offers its employees a wellness program, offering rewards to employees who take part in preventative health activities and wellness events.

In Fiscal Year 2019, the county spent $57.1 million on its self insurance fund.

8 thoughts on “Report: 16% of County Employees Depressed

  • 2020-09-15 at 7:39 pm
    Permalink

    Who would have thought that having a recession-proof job in a time when:

    hoards of people have lost their private sector jobs,
    owners are shuttering their businesses and
    everyone is truly burdened by massive tax bills…

    would result in depression?

    • 2020-09-16 at 11:46 am
      Permalink

      What makes you think County jobs are recession proof? From what I recall, lots of county jobs/staff were cut during the 2008 recession.

      • 2020-09-18 at 11:36 am
        Permalink

        How many is “lots?” And what was that number as a percentage of the entire county workforce.

        The U3 unemployment rate rose by ~5.5% during the 2007-8 Recession and remained at an elevated rate until about four years ago.

        That represents significant and persistent job losses.

        Can you make the same claim about jobs supported by Loudoun County taxpayers?

      • 2020-09-18 at 12:25 pm
        Permalink

        I was concerned that maybe my comments have been misguided and that Loudoun taxpayer-funded jobs AREN’T “recession proof.”

        So I went back and grabbed the headcount data from the annual reports. Here’s what it shows:

        General LCPS Total
        2006 3250 7648 10898
        2007 3353 8844 12197
        2008 3375 9309 12684
        2009 3304 10533 13837
        2010 3302 9838 13140
        2011 3303 10098 13401
        2012 3426 9663 13089
        2013 3438 9671 13109
        2014 3536 9638 13174
        2015 3584 9822 13406
        2016 3688 10210 13898
        2017 3754 10640 14394
        2018 3976 11103 15079

        The data suggests a reduction of perhaps 50-70 headcount during the early phase of the Recession. Whether that was through attrition, retirements or layoffs is unknown. But when expressed as a %, I’d say that’s somewhere around 2% of the workforce. Obviously ignoring the LCPS staffing numbers here.

        2% job “losses” during one of the worst global economic collapses is virtually a rounding error. For anyone that was laid off during that period, I’m certain there was a hardship, but these numbers absolutely support the assertion that Loudoun County government jobs are recession proof.

    • 2020-09-16 at 12:18 pm
      Permalink

      No kidding, @Ace10. My private sector spouse lost his job in April (thankfully he has found something else, but at a 37% pay cut). We all should be so lucky to have the kind of job stability and benefits package offered by the government (a/k/a/ taxpayer-funded jobs).

  • 2020-09-16 at 8:49 am
    Permalink

    I’d be depressed if I had to pretend every crackpot scheme coming from the 5th floor was a great idea.

  • 2020-09-16 at 7:01 pm
    Permalink

    This article needs more context to be meaningful. Percentage of how many people? What were the severity of symptoms? Simply stating x x% of employees are depressed, means nothing without context. Did x number simply have a bad day and report to the nurse they were feeling depressed, and were therefore diagnosed as depressed (for that visit)? Present more detail, rather than simply throwing numbers out to get an OMG reaction from readers. It’s similar to when the news polls indicate 10% of the US population thinks this or that way about a topic, when the the small writing states 1,565 people were polled (out of a country of almost 400 million people). I mean, come on! Please, more detail.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: