Slashdot Mirror
About 25% of HealthCare.gov Applications Have Errors
itwbennett writes "An estimated one in four user applications sent from HealthCare.gov to insurance providers have errors introduced by the website, an official with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said during a press briefing Friday. The errors include missing forms, duplicate forms and incorrect information in the applications, such as wrong information about an applicant's marital status, said Julie Bataille, communications director for HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). While the software bugs leading to the errors have largely been fixed, as many as 10 percent of insurance applications may still have errors and consumers who have used HealthCare.gov to buy insurance and have concerns that their applications haven't been processed or have errors should contact their insurers, Bataille said."
So basically, end user error is now counted as the website's problem? When did this start becoming common practice?
An internal investigation into the magical healthcare.gov form errors ended when they noticed several changes attributed to "Yiuf, Crazy".
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
`... to nigger up the health care system.
Thanks a lot for voting for the nigger, you fucktards.
But hey! At least he does not wear "magic underwear!!!!" lolollolololololo And he has never made a profit... he actually HATES people who make money, so it's understandable that you losers would have wood for him.
You can keep your errors.
Period.
By this point, I think people generally understand that Healthcare.gov is to be avoided if at all possible. This system of systems is a monster (reportedly 500 million lines of code at 60-70% completion), and it's probably too big to test -- testing might take longer than it took to write, i.e., the QA death spiral.
The only reason to use the exchange is to get a subsidy. If you are a normal taxpayer who won't qualify for one, go off-exchange.
Or, join a religious health care pool, which are medical cost-sharing plans that are exempt from the law.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Is this after correcting against how many would have errors if they were filed directly? I'm willing to bet that direct applications contain a similar number of inaccuracies, so what's the news here?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
And since it is done over the internet even more astounding that only 25 percent of these are fucked up beyond all recognition. Just like I am. Just like God is. Just like that web site is. If TV was the boob tube the internet is the no end of the tunnel pussy.
Better them than me. Talk about an ugly technical job.
never a better time to consult with momkind our spiritual centerpeace
I can picture the big white banner right now as we speak - "Mission Accomplished - Affordable Healthcare is Now Online".
Yeah, sure only a few billion down the toilet on a web site and kickbacks to key supporters, but its the same idea.
The only difference is that no liberal think tank is going to keep a tally on the impact of this debacle of a law.
By this point, I think people generally understand that Healthcare.gov is to be avoided if at all possible. This system of systems is a monster (reportedly 500 million lines of code at 60-70% completion), and it's probably too big to test -- testing might take longer than it took to write, i.e., the QA death spiral.
I fail to see what a large codebase has to do with end users using or not using it.
The only reason to use the exchange is to get a subsidy. If you are a normal taxpayer who won't qualify for one, go off-exchange.
Why wouldn't somebody want to compare plans and prices available off-exchange with those in the exchange, exactly?
I don't respond to AC's.
We don't have to excuse them, we can demand they anticipate these things and provide for it. They seems to have an idea of these issues, with their plans to create a cadre of "navigators" to help people with internet access and web site help. But the plan and law was heavily politicized, 36 states refused to set up their own exchanges and dumped all of them on the federal exchange. Millions of people who would have gone to medicaid are dumped into exchanges because they refused to expand medicaid.
No doubt there were self inflicted wounds. Politicians scared of people getting sticker shock, insisted on disabling the window shop and see full price option at roll out, That was the root cause of disaster. The first thing the "tech surge" did was to enable window shopping. It was enabled as early as Oct 15, I tested it then, They could not have done it that soon if it was fresh code. Window shopping was the original code, They just disabled the meddling by the politicians and went on the original code path.
Still they are doing it in the right order. Get people to commit to a plan before the dead line. Errors on the back end can be sorted out when they actually file claims,
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I tried to get coverage using the Healthcare.gov website. My state (NH) doesn't have its own site and I found a good on-market plan. I was about to submit my completed application, but noticed an error - the start and end dates were one day off, with it saying to start on 12/31/2013 and end 12/30/2014. Worrying about it, I called the healthcare.gov website help line, they refused to help saying I needed to talk to the insurance company. I tried calling the healthcare company and they confirmed it to be a mistake. I finally called up the healthcare.gov helpline saying I'd like the "advance team" to delete my application, assuming it might be something that could be fixed on a new application, something I now see as a big mistake. I'm now no longer able to login, with it not even giving me an error, just won't login.
You fucking Obamaphiles could at least try to be original when shilling.
This post is the best example of an apologist with no logic or facts for backup.
No. They awarded a known incompetent company with a record of bad projects with a non-compete contract. Then they paid them ONE HALF OF A BILLION DOLLARS for a shitty website and aren't asking for a fucking refund.
Part of the 25% error rate is apparently the Feds double-sending a form. That's not a good thing, but it's not like the insurer can't do it's job just because it has two identical copies of one of your forms. If the forms are different, and include important info, the double-copies could be a huge problem, but the article doesn't give us any way to tell how many of these 25% error are actually errors vs. how many are conservatives in the insurance industry bitching that their guy got whipped in November of 2012.
More importantly the data is old. There were 834 errors in forms sent prior to the big relaunch, which works out to a 25% error rate, and indicates that roughly 3,336 actually managed to get the website to tell them it worked in October/November; but pretty much the entire reason we had a relaunch was that the site sucked. The current error rate in the article is 0.77%. It's probable that number will go up, as most of that actual humans who've used the site haven't sen the copies of the forms sent to the insurance companies yet, maybe by an order of magnitude (ie: 8% error rate), but so far the relaunched website seems to be doing OK.
I waited until the last minute because 'fuck the government' right? But when I did call, I got a really nice lady that walked me through the whole process in less than 30 minutes. They basically ask you the questions from the forms (the forms are also available to fill out yourself and mail in. Forms link, and instructions link)
I have a family of 4 and we'll end up paying $74.00 per month for Blue Cross Silver plan. It's better than what I have right now through Blue Cross, and I've been paying $400 a month for it.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I was thinking of changing my Major Medical plan, because it is getting expensive. It has literally doubled in price in the last three years. I went to ehealthinsurance.com, which is where I normally shop for insurance. I found that the cheapest premium is about the same as I am paying now, meaning that insurance rates really have gone up by 100% in the last three years. Probably due to some sort of new legislation.
Even worse, I was comparing if my plan started now. If I started a new plan in 2014, the lowest cost plan is 50% MORE than I am paying now. That would mean that insurance rates have tripled in three years.
My company just switched insurance plans to a much more expensive plan for the full family option. It is more than $1,300 a month. I won't be participating, of course, since much cheaper plans are available individually. I wonder if my employer gets their kickback per individual, or is it just for signing up the company? If it is per individual, I will probably expect some retribution for not using the plan.
Anyway, I question how some of the lower paid full timers can afford this. After the cost of the insurance plan, dental and FICA, they are probably only going to be taking home a few hundred dollars a month at best.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
After FINALLY completely the application after deleting and restarting again and again I finally got to the point where I was given some quotes.
And they were off the wall. The prices per month for what I had were more than $200-$400 a MONTH MORE than what I was paying and
with the hidden costs of deductions, formularies, etc. I just won't have any insurance.
The root cause of the problem is that Republicans dominate very small states with very large percentage of poor people. For example South Carolina had about 150K people already eligible for medicaid but were unaware of it. Even though the Republicans refused to expand medicare, the medicare rolls are expected to swell by 150K, because they are just finding out that they are actually eligible, and if they don't enroll for free healthcare, they would end up paying a fine! There are another 350K people who would know that they are within 400% of the poverty level, eligible for subsidies, and the Governor refused to give them access to that money. The hospitals and providers are going to lose about a billion dollars of federal money. Romney won that state by a margin of 2.2%. NC has 4.7 million registered voters, Romney's margin in raw votes is just 100K. If the potential loss of medical coverage or the possibility of getting subsidy impels a fraction of this 500K who are not already voting Democrat to register to vote, or actually show up to vote or switch from R to D, that would be disastrous to the Republicans.
If a dilettante like me crunches numbers like this, the politicians have at least semi or deci Nate Silvers in their pay roll. They know what is coming down the pike. Sure you could decry it as a simple vote getting ploy by the Democrats. And you could rail about the unfunded expansion and the effect it is going to have in the deficits etc etc. You could shout till cow comes home, "if people vote themselves benefits without worrying about the costs, Democracy will die". But if Republicans do not find a way to pacify that section of the population, none of these intellectual arguments are going to sway the people who are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This also would have given a lot of supporters with subsidy eligibility certificate in hand, willing to contact their senators and representatives asking them to support ACA. This is a grave and stupid political mistake by the Democrats. And they are paying the price for it.
But in the long run, people already having medical coverage through employer or through medicare would not change their vote because of ACA. Democrats would continue to support it, probably bemoaning not implementing single payer or public option. Republicans won't gain too many votes from that group. But from the 40 million people without health care, people eligible for medicare and people below 400% of poverty level (that is nearly 90K AGI for a family of four) eligible for subsidies, there is going to be solid vote gain for Democrats. And most of it will happen in solidly red states because they have the largest percentage of poor people.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I cannot complete the online application. I even tried deleting the incomplete application and created a new one. I still receive an error before I input my household income. Ugg.
Who cares....??? Healthcare.gov is like Katty Perry or Britney spears...... sheeple feedings
It's bad management. Not a software story.
Opt out of Obamacare entirely. Don't apply for it and don't pay the fine and set up your taxation such that there's no refund for them to snag.
You'd have to be a complete doofus to use that site. Don't give your personal and private information to a site that has zero security.
Yes, I see the data flowing between a plan and the .gov site. .gov they were providing new certs and end points. Just in time infrastructure provisioning was in full force.
The web services fail hundreds of times a day to this site. We now ignore the errors from the site and consider the broken.
I believe that the applications coming through with errors are greater than 33%, probably closer to 35%. Some might be user entry issues not the vast majority.
The weekend before go live for
While Dave Kennedy might be a bit of a media whore, he is a respected security consultant. If he says it is vulnerable then it is probably chock full of holes. Passing a CMS audit is a freaking nightmare, figure 30 plus full time resources to pass a 912 audit for just the infrastructure and non externally facing websites. CMS would never have let this go live for a private firm.
The website is just the first hurdle on this long journey to transform the current private health insurance model.
Yes, I posted as AC because I like my job!
We're just dying to try out version 2.0. Preferably 2.0.1 where they have the bugs worked out.
From what i understand, a lot of that cost was infrastructure, not code. That can be reused even if the application was burnt to the ground and started fresh.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That sounds like a great deal if you live clean anyway. If you don't drink much, don't plan on getting pregnant, and don't care for routine examinations it's a great deal - just like the cheaper health insurance plans that are now illegal.
As for the "scare" from your link, it was one case where the company decided it could not legally provide insurance in the state where the people lived - unfortunate but not really a company issue. And an arbitration panel agreed with that assessment when challenged, You prefer to believe the state that claimed it never blocked them from providing coverage, even though the state as just as mud a PR interest in looking good as the company.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The government is taxing you for being alive. All the credits for not meeting the bureaucrats' current definition of "poor" are irrelevant. Before the ACA, one could choose to get no insurance for no cost; basically buying nothing for nothing. Now we're supposed to pay a fee simply for buying nothing? Fuck that. In the end it's a money grab for government and the massive insurance companies that funnel money to them one way or another. The American people largely took it in the ass on this one.
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Errors-found-in-84-of-SF-mortgages-in-foreclosure-3334954.php
Obama-kun is a condom monger in a sexless market. Ha Ha.
A male is not simultaneously subsidizing women (by paying more for a policy that includes coverage for female issues) and be getting subsidized by women (paying for coronary coverage men are more likely to need). In a subsidy situation, one person overpays so the other person can underpay. What you have done is to simply assert that the man and woman in the example are in a common risk pool sharing the risks (with the "winner" being whoever actually ends up needing the care... which is the case with all insurance including pre-Obamacare).
With traditional insurance, everybody voluntarily participates in a risk pool and each participant is underpaying - getting a better benefit package than he/she could normally afford. That's not what's happening under Obamacare. With Obamacare, government is requiring people to enter one of a limited set of government-designed risk pools where the risks have actually been removed (pre-existing conditions are covered and there are no caps). To make this work, the government has designed the policies to "cover" all sorts of things most people do not need (so they get the illusion of buying a cadillac plan when they overpay) while setting the deductibles and co-pays so high that a typical young buyer will never get any benefit (i.e. a 25 year-old with a "Bronze Plan" will never spend enough on doctors in a single year to reach the point where the plan pays its first dollar for him). If you are young and have a "Bronze Plan" and have less than, say $15K, in the bank then you WILL go bankrupt under Obamacare if you develop the need for major medical services. (So much for the promise that nobody will ever be bankrupted by healthcare costs... well, actually you go bankrupt BEFORE the plan kicks-in rather than while the plan is helping you as with pre-Obamacare...)
For a normal person the proper priority would be to start with honesty; an honest and fiscally-sound plan, honestly offered and promoted... and then IF the honestly-informed public supported it, an honest contract to a competent set of vendors to set things up properly
For progressives, who honestly believe that the ends justify the means, the avalanche of dishonesty in Obamacare is just fine
It does not matter that Obama went all around America promising that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, Period. Nobody is going to take it away from you" while his advisers knew full well that this was untrue and are on the record having decided not to "cloud the issue" with the truth.
It does not matter that Obama went all around the country promising that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, Period" even though his team admitted behind closed doors that they knew this was untrue.... Obama and his progressively dishonest supporters accused anybody who warned this was untrue of being .... yup, LIARS
It does not matter that Obama promised that Obamacare would save the typical family $2500 even though his HHS knew this was false.
It does not matter that a number of Obama's crew went to capitol hill to testify before congress all through 2013 that they had the healthcare website under control and it would be ready to go on Oct 1st. Oh, and they accused anybody who doubted them of being a liar
It does not matter that after they screwed-up the Oct 1st launch, they promised that it would be fixed by Nov 30th even though they knew full-well that the code that handled the back-end and the money would not even be written before December
It does not matter that they constructed a healthcare law that could only get through the Senate on a 60-vote margin, but then lost an election and therefore lost that margin, and ended-up illegitimately jamming-it through using the reconcilliation process (by pretending it was a taxing/spending bill) nor does it matter that the constitution requires that taxing/spending bills originate in the House (there is a legal challenge on this basis working its way through the courts)
Progressives want total control of the population and the best way to get that is to control their lives... which you do when you control their healthcare. That's why controlling healthcare is a top priority of every leftist government... and why they will always excuse ANY action required to get that control. It's all about power and if you have to lie, cheat, steal, etc to get that power then you are justified.
When you lefties try to use the Bible to justify things like armed robbery, you just expose your illiteracy/ignorance
When Jesus said (quoted here from KJV rather than original language which few on Slashdot could read) : "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." he was speaking of the voluntary acts of compassion and charity of individuals to other individuals and NOT making a case for government pointing a gun at a man and ordering him to hand over his money so the government could keep a cut and distribute the rest as it desires to its selected, preferred recipients (many of whom may not even be needy)
What you do not often notice is that the Christian definition of charity does not involve government, nor compulsion, nor is it a group activity. You also seem to always miss things like the followers of Jesus getting upset when a woman poured some expensive oil on him; they argued that the oil should have been sold and the money spent on the poor (sort of like "tax the rich" to get the money to "help" the poor) and his response: "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."
Oh, and then there's those pesky bits where he says things like "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." ... yeah..... not much support there for lefty ideas like "gay marriage". nor do you often like the bits where Jesus confirms the validity of the old laws (like the ones that say people who choose not to work do not get to eat).
Yeah, it's sort of amusing to see left-wingers who frequently deny Jesus and write-off the Bible as a dusty old work of fiction suddenly dig it up and page through it looking for a few verses to support economic models that are based on violating the most basic principles of the Ten Commandments ("thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou shalt Not Covet" come to mind...)
"It's the same goddamn magical PRIVATE SECTOR health insurance we had before."
this part is a lie.... as your very next sentence exposes:
"The only real difference being that now, due to the law called the Affordable Care Act, the insurance companies aren't allowed to refuse to provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions such as the horribly expensive "disease" we refer to as "being a female human who is pregnant or plans to become pregnant in the next twelve months".
I know this is difficult for you progressives but: "it's different" is NOT equal to "it's the same"
As for what's "better", in America we used to leave it to the individual to decide what was "better" for him or her as an individual. The new plans with HUGE deductibles and co-pays and much higher premiums suck for everybody who must buy them in order to grossly overpay in order to fund all the subsidies for other people. If the MILLIONS being kicked-off the plans they had really did prefer the new plans then people would not be upset, they'd be happy (as delusional progressives imagine them to be) but Obama and his followers KNOW that this is a giant fraud.... the proof is that they use the force of law to order consumers to buy the product; Nobody needs to be forced to buy things they really want and like. Nobody buys an iPad because Obama passed a law requiring people to buy one.
Oh, and "being female" was never classified as a pre-existing condition.... women were charged more for health insurance because they statistically use far more healthcare. Women go for lots more checkups and procedures than men (who generally have to get dragged, "kicking-and-screaming" to the doctor) therefore they cost more to cover, therefore they were charged more... a problem that generally went away for married women who ended-up on their husband's policies or for working women who ended up in employer group plans. The flip side is that men often payed more for car insurance, and life insurance because they were more-likely to be more expensive to those insurers..... life is not, and never can be, completely "fair"
100% of Software has errors.