Slashdot Mirror
HealthCare.gov Can't Handle Appeals of Errors
PapayaSF writes "The Washington Post reports that roughly 22,000 people have claimed they were charged too much, steered into the wrong insurance program, or denied coverage, but the HealthCare.gov website cannot handle appeals. They've filled out seven-page forms and mailed them to a federal contractor's office in Kentucky, where they were scanned and entered, but workers at CMS cannot read them because that part of the system has not been built. Other missing aspects are said to have higher priorities: completing the electronic payment system for insurers, the connections with state Medicaid programs, and the ability to adjust coverage to accommodate major changes such as new babies. People with complaints about mistakes have been told to 'return to the Web site and start over.'"
Maybe they should have hired actual coders to do the job.
I have been advising anyone who will listen to keep their personal information the hell away from that site. My assumption is the fraudsters that eventually got hold of it would be criminals, not the government and the insurers themselves.
In retrospect I am really not surprised.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yeah, $634 million and counting (as of... way back in 2013-10) ceartainly isn't enough to develop a website. What price would you have us pay, ridiculous, partisan one?
sig: sauer
If you created this huge of a disaster you would have lost the contract, and most likely have to pay back any payments made. You would also be on a virtual blacklist as being completely incompetent.
But here in the federal government.. it doesn't work that way. You get rewarded.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... I personally know several people, in several states that have not established their own exchanges, who have signed up for "Obamacare" using the federal site and are now taking advantage of much better coverage, at a much lower price, than they could have received before the ACA went into effect. The problems are real and clearly need to be fixed, but beware of confirmation bias--every single problem is going to get lots of press, while successes go unnoticed because they don't fit the "if it bleeds, it leads" paradigm.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
And didn't 3 guys make a working front-end site in a few weeks (the part that lets you browse for coverage). This project went quite well if the goal was to funnel $600 MM into the pockets of well-connected contracting firms, but otherwise it's hard to see how anyone could fail so badly at what's effectively a storefront website. (Yes, the backend's a bitch, and 3 guys couldn't do it in a month, but it's not that hard).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Single-payer universal nationalized healthcare is right around the corner.
Just a few more insurance rate hikes and government regulatory fiascos should do the trick.
I used to be against it. Now it looks like a blessing.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
that the government keeps hiring firms like Accenture. This is not the first time they have been involved in failed government IT projects. Here is just one of many examples: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Accenture has learned how to game the system. A system that, for large scale government projects, is very difficult to break into. The contract language makes it very difficult, or impossible, to bid on if you are a small company.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that the procurement system is broken and yet neither one of them have offered any concrete solutions.
The failure of Healthcare.gov is not news. It's business as usual. The difference is that healthcare.gov affects many people more directly so it has higher visibility. Many of the other failed projects do not have the same direct impact so they appear in the news for a little while and are then swept under the rug.
Probably would have cost less money to just put up a web page that says; "We can't help you, but we will gladly take your money."
Not really, as the "take your money" part also doesn't work reliably.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Maybe if they got 9 women pregnant they could have had a baby in 1 month.
Now tell us all how much you approve of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.
Was that in the requirements doc? There was a requirements doc, wasn't there?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It didn't cost $634 million.
The $600+m is what you get if you simply add up every contract given to the original contractor (CGI Technology and Solutions) since 2007. You know, when Bush was in the Whitehouse. They're a reasonably large, reasonably well-used contractor for things so they do other stuff too.
Since Congress dicked around with actually providing specific funding for it's creation, the estimate is that it probably cost about $120 million, with an original budget of ~$55 million + auxiliary spending (after changes to the various bills by Congress and states) of $63 million. For a total of ~$120 m. That's probably at the high end.
Yeah, $634 million and counting...
Nope. It is more like $174 million and counting (still plenty of scratch though).
For those that don't follow the link (and are unfamiliar with government contracting practices - which is most everybody): CGI Federal was a successful bidder on an HHS umbrella contract in 2007 (Bush Administration, in other words) to provide IT services to HHS, along with IBM, Computer Sciences Corp., and Quality Software Services. These same four companies were the bidders (under said long term contract) for the specific task of site implementation, and the $634 million figure is for all of the services from CGI Federal under that contract. Only 25% of that total, dating back to 2007, was for the website.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Where did you hear that?
'The health department has provided some information on spending. It paid $174 million on contracts tied to Healthcare.gov and supporting technology through August, a sum that jumped to $319 million by the end of October, according to Albright of the Medicare agency.
The figures suggest a late surge in spending before the website’s opening. Only $18 million was spent in October, Albright said in an e-mail.
The Medicare and Medicaid agency owes $630 million for the work through September, Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the health office, has said. The agency didn’t provide updated information on the amount owed, or obligated, for work since the October debut of healthcare.gov.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Obama Reid and Pelosi jammed this law through with absolutely NO Republican input (Republicans wer physically locked out of the rooms where the law was negotiated and written and heve never even been able to get the names of the lobbyists and lawyers and coproprations who were in the meetings with the Democrats, so they are under NO obligation to support it. That said, however, in every year since the GOP took back the House in 2010 they have had SYMBOLIC votes to repeal Obamacare (symbolic because Reid will never bring any such bill for even a VOTE in the senate (to protect his "moderates" from having to take a stand)) and then they have voted to give Obama all the funds to implement Obamacare (much to the outrage of the TEA Partiers).
Obamacare has been fully-funded; the GOP has failed to repeal it and failed to de-fund it... this is FACT
In those states where GOP governors have not driven their states further into debt by having their states implement state exchanges, those GOP governors are faithfully following Obama's law. If you think this is "wrong" or "unfair" or a form of "sabotage", do not blame any Republican... blame the Democrats who wrote the law with provisions that specifically enabled this choice of actions. The GOP is obeying the law that the Democrats wrote, Obama Reid and Pelosi are just incompetent.
i'm pretty sure they got a decent version up and running in a long weekend...I actually used it to scan available plans in my state, the insurers involved, and to run what-if numbers quickly.
they did a real bang-up job.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Let's see here: massive, corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable bureaucracy fails to build and operate a website to manage ACCESS to health INSURANCE....not even ACTUAL HEALTHCARE......and YOUR solution is to say "let's put it in charge of providing the ACTUAL care"?????
REALLY?????
Can I please have the names of the drugs you are on? I'd love to see the utopia you are seeing, but I suspect those drugs kill IQ points, are highly addictive, lead to hallicinations and will eventually either be banned as "too dangerous" OR be mandated by the political class as a way to make all voters as stupid, docile, and gullible as Obamabots. Aldous Huxley, here we come...
That article isn't especially informative either, but does get into the issue better: it's all about how and what's being tracked and included as "healthcare.gov".
The $634m figure was being bandied around right out the gate - it's probably getting slightly closer to true now, but it depends on what you want to call a boondoggle in how you sum it up. I will wager there's a lot of non-optional IT costs at the moment which people are scrambling to shove under the "healthcare.gov" banner in order to hopefully make the number bigger.
What the hell are you talking about. The ACA is based on a heritage foundation outline and was implemented in Massachusetts just fine. You are not forced to buy the most expensive plans. In fact the exchange plans are competitive with the general market plans http://www.pwc.com/us/hix?WT.m... Furthermore, you are discounting all the people who are benefiting from the expansion of Medicaid in states that chose to allow the expansion. The law also provides a solution to the pre-existing condition problem. It also allows kids to stay on their parents plan until age 26 which helps out a lot of college kids. I agree that the law is not perfect, but it sure is a whole lot better than what we had before. You have no facts backing up anything you said. Please stop trying to spread your FUD here.
I hate to feed a troll, considering how easy it is to unwind your political spin, but I just wanted to point out that we currently have death panels NOW. They are insurance companies, and the death toll they have amassed in documented neglect or denial of service absolutely dwarfs "thousands per year". There is abundant research on this; please do some.
In October 2009 the Democrats who were then running congress by a huge majority changed the locks on the capitol hill meeting rooms so they could keep Republicans out when they wanted to. (they did this to stop Republicans exposing the involvement of Democrats in the 2008 home loan meltdown activity at Countrywide, but they then used those locked rooms to exclude Republicans from the secret healthcare reform negotiations which Obama had promised would air in their entirety live on C-SPAN)
Obama did, indeed, promise Obamacare negotiations would air live on C-SPAN before he broke his promise, and journalists from across the political spectrum objected and tried to get the negotiations opened
And here's an admittedly biased link to a TEA Party site, used here to point out their frustration with the fact that the "establishment" wing (the lifetime politicians who like big government) of the GOP keeps doing SYMBOLIC votes against Obamacare but then keeps actually fully funding it. The Washington elites of both parties have done stuff like that to their base voters on many issues for decades, but the internet is exposing it.
Oh, and if you are in denial about the corporate lobbyists who climbed into bed with Obama on Obamacare, here is a link to a story explaining WHY big insurance got on board (they originally fought it, but then they got admitted to the closed-door meetings WE the public were shut out of). Also see this link on big Pharma and big Insurance climbing on board and throwing money at Democrat politicians. While many organizations and lobbying groups were involved in the "secret" negotiations, the names of most of the individuals involved are NOT known to Republicans who repeatedly demanded the names and were denied.
Let me further point out that when the Obama administration thinks a Republican governor is breaking a law, they run to the federal courts - something they have NOT done (so I cannot link to it here) to any governor over his/her refusal to create a state exchange - a tacit admission that the governors are obeying the law.
Since I have validated everything in the post you said was so full of falsehoods, whereas YOU provided NO evidence ANY of the claims was false, that previous post was the correct one and yours was the loser
Yes, Heritage (a "think tank", NOT the GOP) published a paper endorsing an individual mandate on health insurance, but you guys on the left need to become a bit more honest about waving that report around as evidence that Republicans were for the concept of "Obamacare" up until "a black guy" was for it (always that nasty little accusation of racism, from the party (the Democrats) that owned all the slaves and went on to found the KKK). ONE report from ONE "conservative" think tank does NOT establish the beliefs of the GOP any more than ONE report on ANYTHING from a "progressive" think tank establishes that as official Democrat policy. It's also important to stop accidentally failing to report that the very same Heritage organization has long published rants against individial mandates ( HERE is one example I could quickly find for this post ). Sure, Mitt Romney (in conjunction with a Democratic state legislature) did "Romneycare", but let's face it - that was in loony liberal Kennedy-land and most Republicans from the rest of the country oppose it (it was one of the biggest problems he had in winning the GOP nomination in 2012)
At least right now you have the option of paying for it yourself. According to the GP, They can tell you "no, go away and die" if they do not approve it.... and you will not even be able to get it by paying out of your own wallet. Don't know if that's true or not.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.