Slashdot Mirror


Cost of Healthcare.gov: $634 Million — So Far

First time accepted submitter Saethan writes "Healthcare.gov, the site to be used by people in 36 states to get insurance as part of the Affordable Care Act, has apparently cost the U.S. Government $634 million. Not only is this more than Facebook spent during its first 6 years in operation, it is also over $500 million above what the original estimate was: $93.7 million. Why, in a country with some of the best web development companies in the world, has this website, which is poor quality at best, cost so much?" That $634 million figure comes from this U.S. government budget-tracking system. Given that this system is national rather than for a single city, maybe everyone should just be grateful the contract didn't go to TechnoDyne.

35 of 497 comments (clear)

  1. simple by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Money != contractor knows what it's doing

    1. Re:simple by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or to put it another way, the procurement process selects contractors who thrive in the presence of bureaucracy, not those who actually deliver quality products on time and on budget. This is a well-known and long-standing problem.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:simple by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the government has lots of conditions you have to meet if you want a contract and you have to prove that you meet these conditions

      preference is given to women, minorities, veterans, small businesses, etc. its not a lowest bidder deal

    3. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a lot of discrimination.

    4. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So all government contracts go to female African-American small business owners who are veterans? No wonder the government doesn't get anything done, the poor women must be totally overworked.

    5. Re:simple by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Plenty of talented developers and teams get crushed by government red tape, bureaucracy, and the simple inability of most government agencies to manage their contracts. I can't figure out why but there is an enormous attraction for government program managers to micro-manage. Having worked on a handful of very expensive, very large government programs I can tell you that either side can make a project a disaster. But I've been on teams that can roll out a successful commercial project in 3 months that takes 3 years for nearly identical functionality in the public sector (DoD in my case). It's not incompetence at the individual level, either, in my experience; it's something institutional. Too many regulations that cause inflexibility and twisted risk/reward feedback for both costs and personal performance, and the antithesis of an evolution-as-improvement driven culture to match changing development standards.

    6. Re:simple by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you think that the "women, minorities, veterans preference" means anything at all in the real world, please give some examples. Good luck.

      I knew a guy who worked for a guy who incorporated a business using his wife as the "owner" and he got numerous subsidies for the business because it was owned by a woman.

      Something like that?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    7. Re:simple by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      the government has lots of conditions you have to meet if you want a contract and you have to prove that you meet these conditions preference is given to women, minorities, veterans, small businesses, etc. its not a lowest bidder deal

      Notice how everyone points out their favorite political cause as the reason for the failure, while the actual one dwarfs them all by comparison yet goes unnoticed? Anyone who has worked with the government before knows that the main reason everything is so expensive is bureaucratic red tape and auditing.

      This is why an LED that costs less than a penny winds up costing the government $50 over its total ownership. I've looked at military contracts; Every LED in the system is individually serialized and tracked. You can't just order a bin of them, and put them on a shelf like you would in a normal factory. Even a ten cent screw has to be vetted through approved vendors, assigned its own serial number, etc. And that's just the screws for the toilet paper holder in the Pentagon. You don't wanna know the kind of process screws destined for fighter jets are subjected to.

      So don't say "oh noes, it's because minorities are given preference!" ... which is a patently stupid thing to say anyway since they're paid the same as the non-minorities. That adds very little to the cost -- maybe a .1% bump due to the extra recruiting needed -- unlike the stuff I mentioned, which balloons it to many multiples of what you'd see in the same project in the private sector.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:simple by bware · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've put in many RFQs on government dollars at universities, national labs, and private businesses (I've never been a direct employee of the government). All the law requires is that I get a quote (which usually turns out to be a no-bid) from a minority or woman owned business, and if that quote comes in over, the money still goes to the lowest bidder. The only extra cost is my time in getting another quote. Fair enough.

      Pretty much every extra cost that I see comes about because someone abused the system in that specific way that the rule addresses. You can simply look at the process and see, ah, that rule or requirement was instituted because someone was either dumb or dishonest. No matter how rare or unlikely to occur again, however, the bureaucracy will institute a rule or procedure. Because that's what bureacracies do, private or public.

      Toss in empire-building and that explains most of it. Though honestly the national labs have been far better places to work than the businesses or universities. Businesses are just as subject to these tides of human behavior as governments. They're just not as transparent, and you get fired for making them public.

      I'm not saying this was that Healthcare.gov was the most efficient use of resources ever. On the other hand, the Facebook comparison is ludicrous. FB didn't have to serve 40 million users on day one; they got to scale up slowly. HC.gov is in the unenviable position of having to have a system which will handle millions of users (and almost certainly an overload) the moment it opens, then never having to handle that great a load again. In addition to having to do it in a way that absolutely protects the users HIPAA PII (so don't say cloud), unlike FB, which is in the business of making PII public and faces no penalties if it gets hacked.
       

  2. Rather early to call the site a failure, isn't it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The site had how many people try to sign up in the first day? If you want to compare it to facebook (a popular metric here no doubt) the number of people who attempted to access and sign up on healthcare.gov in the first day dwarfs the first several years of enrollment at facebook. If they had attempted to build a website to handle the load they faced (which will of course taper off quickly once the first wave of enrollees are signed up and done shopping) we would be bitching that they overbuilt the site because they would have tons of servers sitting mostly idle after the initial surge is done.

    We need to wait until it has been up for a while before we go around calling it a failure.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  3. A deal at twice the price by Latent+Heat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In light of the importance of this project, the thing is cheap at 600 million -- if they can get it to work. A pretty big if, it seems right now.

    In other words, the issue right now is not the cost of the thing but whether any amount of money can make it healthy in the required time.

    If this thing doesn't get right, "they" might have to wave the fine/penalty/tax to be payed by people who didn't sign up, which is why there is a political fight right now "shutting down the government"?

    1. Re:A deal at twice the price by tylikcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be curious about this greater complexity assertion. A large part of the project requirement is that it effectively and securely pulls data from a large number of already existing government systems. In my experience, dealing with those kind of externalities is most often neither easy nor cheap... and certainly pretty darned complex. What are you comparing it to?

    2. Re:A deal at twice the price by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Way to over simplify website design, there's a completely lack of understanding of the system here. There's a huge amount of infrastructure that has to be put on the back end to make this work (Servers, Database licensing, Maintenance agreements, Security, Data Centers etc...)

      For a system of this size, It's expensive. I agree with GP, $600 million is pretty cheap for a system intended to serviced over 100,000,000 people. Less than $6 a user is a pretty good deal.

    3. Re:A deal at twice the price by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      In early 2000's, I was involved in a loan processing project that cost the bank more than $500 million (if inflation adjusted, it would be more than $600 million) that never came on-line because it never really worked. It had similar requirements as the health care site (gather a lot of info from the customer, figure out the best loan option for them), and had much less user load requirements. It also employed one of the three top consulting house to develop it. The government is not the only ones who can screw up a tech project.

  4. Complete nonsense by ardmhacha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This figure is not just for building a website.

    It is for all spending with CGI Federal over the time that they have been doing business with the Federal government, including payments from fiscal years before Obamacare was even passed.

    The figure is now being regurgitated by various right wing websites without anything that even passes for thinking.

    And also now slashdot, which is disappointing.

    1. Re:Complete nonsense by retech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot stopped covering fact and started the corporate fear mongering the minute it got sold. Even if the articles aren't padded or misdirections by corporate shills, there's no one in charge anymore (at least not with a calm objective eye). So any hashtaggable buzzword, kneejerk reaction gets sent right to the top.

      Car analogy. Reference Katrina. Site other blogs. Media fear words. Kittens.

  5. Not true - that is a total for _all_ contracts by mynameismonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That figure covers 114 separate contracts (see http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=transactions ) Not to suggest that it still wasn't overly expensive, but consider the fact that the system is a national transaction application that has to dip into numerous other federal data sources - and has a mission criticality above and beyond facebook. Still, many of us could have done it better and cheaper, but then again very few of us would actually enjoy working for the federal government and conducting our business the way any federal contractor is required to.

    --
    -- Religion is not an exact science
  6. HITECH act NOT Affordable Care. by Hozza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The solicitation number linked to actually refers to the HITECH act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to quote health it.gov:

    The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act seeks to improve American health care delivery and patient care through an unprecedented investment in Health IT (HIT).

    And it certainly sound like they've achieved an unprecedented investment at least.

  7. Re:Rather early to call the site a failure, isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a site loads 50+ .js files after you click an 'Apply' button, something is wrong with the design.

  8. Re:Rather early to call the site a failure, isn't by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Handling what is potentially HIPAA-covered data? Much harder to do than just working with credit card information.

  9. Re:What the hell by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One website, that's expected to have incredibly heavy loads, will handle personal medical and financial information, and must play suitably well with a ton of third-parties' services while being the target of severe attacks from any foreign government or script kiddy who doesn't like it..

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  10. Re:An Overarching Problem by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Active duty military who get paid very little to defend the country, and VA staff.

  11. Several reasons by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    One: Schedule Fail. Compounded by late award of the contracts to develop/influence:

    Contracts Awarded Dec 2011

    Two: massive requirements base to develop specification for development and implementation: The PPACA was 1800+ pages, and the associated regulations are 10,000+ pages, and are STILL changing. Can't develop without a spec and design, with big parts of requirements still changing.

    Three: inadequate testing. The above-referenced link states that security testing BEGAN in August 2013, less than two months before rollout. There's no mention of load testing

    Four: Integration issues. The Obamacare Exchange system combines data from numerous agencies and systems, and integrating between them is always a difficult task

    Five: Identity-management. This is in parallel to Integration, somehow all identities need to be federated into a single overarching system.

    Twenty-three months, even with a top-flight team, would simply not be enough to do this: this is a 5-7 year job. . .

  12. Re:What the hell by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One website, that's expected to have incredibly heavy loads[...]

    Well here's the rub. In regular operation, the loads aren't going to be incredibly high. They'll be "very" high, but not ridiculously. You could argue that their single largest mistake was trying to do a massive roll out to everyone in the country all at once. They should have rolled out to a small number of people, worked the kinks out and come back in a month with a slightly larger roll out. Rinse and repeat until it's available for everyone and you have some idea what your actual day to day usage numbers are going to be.

  13. Re:An Overarching Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real problem is that NOBODY, in ANY branch of the U.S. government, gives a shit about anything other than enriching themselves.

    I cordially invite ANY evidence to the contrary.

    If you are talking about politicians I'll agree with you. However if you are talking about government employees I have to tel you to taking a flying F@&K, as you have no idea what you are talking about. I am working without pay at this time. I don't know when I will be paid thanks to the shutdown, but that hasn't stopped me from doing my job.

  14. Comparison to Facebook a teensy bit misleading by TimHunter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a nice overview of just what's going on with the ACA website. The chart from Xerox illustrates why the system is a just a teensy bit more complicated than Facebook. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/09/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamacares-error-plagued-web-sites/

  15. Re:What the hell by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of which had the luxury of a slow rollout, and don't have anywhere near the same amount of damage done if they're compromised.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  16. It's more about Education Of Workforce by Kagato · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a part of it. The largest part in the evaluation is education of work force. Not a lot of rank and file programmers in the US get more than a bachelors degree. Why would they? Unless you're doing work with advanced algorithms or some sort of management there aren't a lot of drivers to have the additional education.

    Because of the weight contracts have on education you see a lot of folks with unrelated degrees and foreign diploma mills. That leads to poor final output.

    On a campaign level the administration knows how to put together software quickly. But that's not the way the law allows the gov't to operate. Large contractors have been gaming the bidding process for three decades.

  17. Re:Badly by Delusion_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As opposed to the health insurance industry, which is a billion dollar a year boondoggle whose only functions are to determine who gets billed for what, and to deny benefits in order to increase "shareholder value".

    Even fairly incompetent governments around the world have been shown to be able to manage a single-payer system without it becoming such a drain on the GDP.

  18. DAMN STRAIGHT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    What right wing sites, liberal???

    There are no right wing sites. All of the sites, and the entire media, are left wing and biased. It is a constant attack on our principles, our freedoms, and America by the entire universe, and reality, which has an unfair liberal bias! Why do you hate freedom, liberal? Why do you hate prosperity? Can't you see that there are only a few conservatives (read, glorious defenders of freedom) left, and that the brave ones who speak out are shot? GLORY, GLORY HALLELUJAH! We shall prevail in the end!

  19. Re:What the hell by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It came from middle-middle-middlemen. We've privatized the hell out of a lot of important tasks that the federal government does in the name of making them cheaper, but I think every single person in our industry can tell you that contractors are expensive as hell, and add nothing but immediacy.

    So, we pay full time people in the government to review contract bids. Those contractors are specialists in winning government contracts, and do nothing other than hire sub-contractors. Those subcontractors hire actual employees, but only a trickle of the money they make goes to paying for the work. They take a huge overhead for legal, HR, actual overhead, and profits. The parent contractor takes a similar huge cut before passing things on to subcontractors.

    We've already multiplied the actual costs by 10 or more, without having even brought "overruns", "missed requirements", and real QA into the picture.

  20. Re:failure...certainly by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama ran on the platform that something needed to be done about the millions of people that had no healthcare.

    And millions of people are under-impressed by the fact that Obama signed us all up as customers for giant health insurance companies instead of actually doing something to ensure that people get something useful out of the venture.

    I guess the only surprising thing is that only a million people tried to sign up. With all of the grass-roots programs encouraging people to sign up, with all of the hype, they should have been expecting traffic of DDOS proportions.

    The massive health insurance company bailout act of 2010 (aka affordable care act) does not dictate that everyone has to buy insurance this week. While it does unfortunately have a mandate in it as a massive concession to the health insurance industry that contributes in huge numbers to nearly every politician in Washington, it does at least give a few months before that mandate kicks in. Hence they did not have a good reason to expect every uninsured person to log in in the first week, and indeed that did not happen.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  21. Re:Everything the government does... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem with your idea is that this site was NOT built by the government. It was built by private contractors in a competitive bidding process.

    And you want to turn the police over to private contractors?

    Lots of other things are done by private contractors for the government. For example most of the defense department procures everything it gets via competitive bidding from private contractors.

  22. Ars Technica Explains by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ars has a great article up going into more depth of why this happens so often here: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/why-us-government-it-fails-so-hard-so-often/

  23. Same as the Canadian national gun registry by Jabrwock · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before it was scrapped, the Canadian government had shelled out over a billion dollars to pay for the federal gun registry. It was initially budgeted to cost a few hundred million. Why the bloat? Because they didn't factor in the cost of every single department and major player having a different computer system, and wanting integration with their systems, and they didn't want their individual departments to pay for it, or have to change their own internal systems. So it all got added into the registry's budget instead.

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.