On Sept. 5 Test of Obamacare's Website, CMS Staffers 'Secretly Rooted For It To Fail'

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Interesting read from Forbes



Avik Roy, Contributor-Forbes

We’ve known for at least nine months that Obamacare’s website could turn out to be a “third-world experience.” In recent weeks, we’ve learned that there hadn’t been an end-to-end test of whether Americans could enroll as late as September 26, five days before the October 1 launch. So the obvious question has been: if the administration knew the website wasn’t ready, why did they roll it out anyway? An explosive new report confirms that the decision was political. Some staffers were so desperate to persuade the President to change course that, during a September 5 demonstration of the healthcare.gov website, they “secretly rooted for it to fail so that perhaps the White House would wait to open the exchange until it was ready.”

The report comes from Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post. Goldstein and Eilperin interviewed “more than two dozen current and former administration officials and outsiders who worked alongside them” to get to the bottom of why the rollout of Obamacare’s insurance exchanges has been so problematic.


One of the individuals they interviewed was Harvard’s David Cutler, who served as a senior health policy advisor to the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign. On May 11, 2010, Cutler sent a searing memo to former Harvard President Larry Summers, now serving as director of Obama’s National Economic Council, relaying his concern “that the personnel and processes you have in place are not up to the task, and that health reform will be unsuccessful as a result.”

“While this memo is my own,” wrote Cutler, “the views are widely shared, including by many members of your administration (whose names I will omit but who are sufficiently nervous to urge me to write), as well as by knowledgeable outsiders such as Mark McClellan (former CMS administrator) and Henry Aaron (Brookings). Indeed, I have been at a conference on health reform the past two days, and have found not a single person who disagrees with the urgent need for action.”

“They were running the biggest start-up in the world,” Cutler told Goldstein and Eilperin. “And they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-up, or even run a business. It’s very had to think of a situation where the people best at getting legislation passed are best at implementing it. They are a different set of skills.”


In the 2010 memo, Cutler complained that the Department of Health and Human Services was “far behind the curve on the key long-term reform efforts.” Don Berwick, Obama’s choice to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “has never run a provider organization or insurance company, or dealt with Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement. On basic issues…Don knows relatively little.” Senior staff at CMS has “no experience running a health care organization,” Cutler said.

Cutler also criticized the person tasked with setting up the insurance exchanges, because that person was ideologically hostile to the industry. “If you cannot find a way to work with hesitant states and insurers, reform will blow up. I have seen no indication that HHS even realizes this, let alone is acting on it.”

Jeanne Lambrew, “the overall head of implementation inside HHS…is known for her knowledge of Congress, her commitment to the poor, and her mistrust of insurance companies. She is not known for operational ability, knowledge of delivery systems, or facilitating widespread change. Thus, it is not surprising that…exchange administration [is] receiving little attention. Further, the fact that Jeanne and people like her cannot get along with other people in the Administration means that…valuable problem solving time is wasted on internal fights…no one I interact with has confidence that your current personnel and configuration is up to the task.”


A running theme in the Goldstein-Eilperin piece is political paranoia, the degree to which the White House kept key details of Obamacare’s implementation secret—from its own allies—because they feared that even modest efforts at transparency would lead to criticism from Republicans. It was “a sensitivity so intense that the president’s aides ordered that some work be slowed down or remain secret for fear of feeding the opposition.”

“According to two former officials,” they write, “CMS staff members struggled at ‘multiple meetings’ during the spring of 2011 to persuade White House officials for permission to publish diagrams known as ‘concepts of operation,’ which they believed were necessary to show states what a federal exchange would look like. The two officials said the White House was reluctant because the diagrams were complex, and they feared that the Republicans might reprise a tactic from the 1990s of then Sen. Bob Dole (R., Kan.), who mockingly brandished intricate charts created by a task force led by first lady Hillary Clinton.”

“In the end…the White House quashed the diagrams,” which prevented states from learning about how the administration wanted the insurance exchanges to be designed. The administration blocked the release of key regulations until after the election, for fear of their unpopularity. “The dynamic was you’d have [CMS’s leaders] going to the White House saying, ‘We’ve got to get this process going.’ There would be pushback from the White House,” said one former official.

The White House even refused to share key information with Democratic allies in Congress. Key Congressional leaders were only notified a half-hour before the public was that President Obama was to delay the law’s employer mandate by one year. (The employer mandate requires companies with more than 50 workers to provide health coverage to each full-time employee.) In a meeting with Democrats a week before the announcement, Jeanne Lambrew “gave no hint” that a delay was imminent.

Richard Foster, the former chief actuary at CMS, described these delays as a “singularly bad decision,” one that put “short-term political gain” ahead of the successful implementation of reform.

Some staffers advocated a delay of the rollout, to no avail

A number of people buried within the administration were concerned about a botched rollout, and tried to make their concerns known. “By late 2012,” Goldstein and Eilperin write, “some staffers were aware…that the work of building the federal exchange was lagging…a much earlier timeline than has been previously disclosed. Some employees in the main office involved with building the exchange repeatedly warned at meetings late last year and in early 2012 that so many things were behind schedule that there would be no time for adequate ‘end-to-end’ testing of how the moving parts worked together.”

“People were like, well…it’s a dynamic we can’t change,” a former HHS official told the reporters. “There wasn’t a way to push back or challenge it up the line. You had the policy people, largely at the White House, pushing the deadlines and tinkering with the policy, rather than the people who had to run the critical operating path design and program the system.”

On August 17, Shabnam Shahmohammad of CGI Federal—the main IT contractor for the exchange—sent an email to Tyrone Thompson of CMS, and several others, stating that they had only completed 55 percent of the tasks that they had been assigned.

On September 5—less than a month before Oct. 1 launch date—officials from the White House went over to CMS to see a “final demonstration” of the healthcare.gov website. “Some staff members worried that it would fail right in front of the president’s aides. A few secretly rooted for it to fail so that perhaps the White House would open the exchange until it was ready.”

But that demonstration—which didn’t incorporate several of the flawed back-end IT processes—seemed just fine. And so the White House stormed ahead, into the biggest blunder of Obama’s presidency.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
It is a true fiasco. It is very well said that the government doesn't know how to get software done. It is much "harder" than many people think :).
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
319
565
BiggestLittleCity
I think the software issue is the least of their problems. All the Docs I know are overworked and ready to call it quits....the soldiers are rebelling and as usual the Generals haven't got a clue.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
There will certainly be fall outs. For my company our rates for next year more than doubled. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars increase for the same policy! Then we go and look up the prices on the exchange and it is cheaper than our currently year with better coverage! I have no idea what dynamics has caused this. Why would insurance companies price their small business policies so far above what the exchange is? How do they expect to earn that business? Or is it the government subsidy that makes the exchange cheaper?

Personally I find the many choices on the exchange wonderful. No longer do I have to stick to one plan my company offered.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
There will certainly be fall outs. For my company our rates for next year more than doubled. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars increase for the same policy! Then we go and look up the prices on the exchange and it is cheaper than our currently year with better coverage! I have no idea what dynamics has caused this. Why would insurance companies price their small business policies so far above what the exchange is? How do they expect to earn that business? Or is it the government subsidy that makes the exchange cheaper?

Personally I find the many choices on the exchange wonderful. No longer do I have to stick to one plan my company offered.

It is strange for small businesses. If we had stuck to the insurance provider we've used for years, the price would have gone up. Not double though. Since that policy did already cover most of the requirements of Obamacare, we have no idea why the price would have gone up by so much. However, what the ACA did was to bring in more insurance providers to Washington state.

Instead, we will switch providers (to one which was not in Washington last year) which will result in getting better coverage for everybody, and it will be more expensive - by about $5 a month per employee. We had considered letting each employee pick their own policy off the exchange and put what the company would have paid for their insurance into their paycheck, but there was no way they would have gotten the same amount of coverage that a small-business policy would have given them.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
414
1,210
Northern NY
One thing I read, some major hospitals like Mayo and Cleveland won't accept many of the carriers on Obamacare exchanges. Buyer beware !
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
319
565
BiggestLittleCity
Two and half hours waiting to see physicians and surgery centers are booked one year in advance. Insurance companies are feeling the heat already and are starting to drop coverage. The problem is 40 million people will enter the system and nothing has been done to account for that,not to mention the aging population and doctors too.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
One thing I read, some major hospitals like Mayo and Cleveland won't accept many of the carriers on Obamacare exchanges. Buyer beware !

Same thing here. Seattle Children's Hospital is not covered by some of the carriers and they sued to be included. The insurance providers countered that Children's charges from 40% to 60% more than other hospitals for the same procedure (an example given was pediatric appendectomy). The hospital's response was that they had more expenses because they were a better hospital........
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Instead, we will switch providers (to one which was not in Washington last year) which will result in getting better coverage for everybody, and it will be more expensive - by about $5 a month per employee. We had considered letting each employee pick their own policy off the exchange and put what the company would have paid for their insurance into their paycheck, but there was no way they would have gotten the same amount of coverage that a small-business policy would have given them.
Thanks for the feedback Gary. We are switching to the exchange and giving the money to our employees to sign up. A number of them qualify for tax credit due to their low income so they come out way ahead.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
I think the software issue is the least of their problems. All the Docs I know are overworked and ready to call it quits....the soldiers are rebelling and as usual the Generals haven't got a clue.
True. They will get a clue when it is too late, however. Then what?

My wife works in the medical industry, and things in the medical community around here are topsy-turvy, to say the least. Expect to see a few off-network doctors and some off-network medical plans.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
True. They will get a clue when it is too late, however. Then what?

My wife works in the medical industry, and things in the medical community around here are topsy-turvy, to say the least. Expect to see a few off-network doctors and some off-network medical plans.

reminds me of the Harley Street doctors in the UK who are out of the socialized medical plan and only bill $$$ direct to the patient
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
319
565
BiggestLittleCity

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I think it would be fine to mercy kill the thing. The alternative is simple -- Let individuals and small businesses buy into Medicare. Allow the same tax credits for low income, the same subsidies for the truly poor, have the same enrollment requirements (which are as socialist as my own state's requirement that I carry insurance in order to register a vehicle, so my negligence won't burden others), but set the penalties high enough that being insured makes better economic sense than paying the fine. Let Medicare administer it; they're really pretty good. Are there procedures that are under-priced? Sure. There are also wealthy suburban cardiac and oncology clinics filled to the waiting room walls with medicare patients whose business is very welcome there. It ain't perfect. But it's not nearly as broke as some people would have you believe. Work on it instead of trying to kill it. And make it an option for the rest of us.

Of course that will never happen. It would work; it would bring down the cost of healthcare. And it would put the insurance business in the toilet. And it would be so successful that their opposition to it would probably strand the GOP on the outskirts of American politics for a generation. There were a number of ways to do this well; that's just one of them. But a Congress bought and paid for by insurance, corporate healthcare and pharma lobbies, and a president who fails to see the difference between compromise and being put in a compromising position, made sure this thing would suck. A bad software launch is little more than a bump in this pothole-ridden road to nowhere.

Tim
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
319
565
BiggestLittleCity
Anybody get a $6,000 bill from Kaiser yesterday? A friend from California did and they dropped him,he can't be the only one.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Obama was briefed earlier in year on health website problems

By Roberta Rampton and Caren Bohan | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, who has portrayed himself as surprised by technical problems with the government's new health care website, was briefed earlier this year on a consultant's report that warned of possible widespread site failures, the White House said on Tuesday.
There have been weeks of questions about whether Obama understood the depth of the site's problems and let it open anyway, or simply "did not have enough awareness" of them, as the president stated at a November 14 news conference.
While the government says it is improving the portal's performance every day, security experts told a Republican sponsored congressional hearing Tuesday that in their opinions, it is still not sufficiently secure to be used confidently by consumers.

Even as the administration fended off criticism of the so-called "front end" of the system, officials revealed Tuesday that they had not completed development of the "back end," the financial management component needed to finalize federal subsidies for consumers who buy health plans.
A spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the lead agency for the website, said it would not be completed until mid-January, weeks after the first enrollees are scheduled to begin receiving benefits under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010 as Obama's signature domestic policy.
The law, commonly called Obamacare, mandated that Americans have health insurance and created new online marketplaces to buy and sell policies.
Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating dipped to a low of 37 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Bits and pieces have leaked out over the past few weeks about flaws in the site's development process. Monday night, however, Republican lawmakers who oppose Obamacare released a report and recommendations prepared by McKinsey & Co at the government's request in March 2013.
It cited, among other things, a rushed process that left insufficient time for testing and a focus by officials on getting people enrolled versus making the system work right.
The consequence, it said, could be system failures that could make enrollment slow or at times impossible for consumers, which is exactly what happened.

Questioned about the McKinsey study, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president had been briefed on it in the spring.
But he said the president's familiarity with the report and recommendations did not contradict previous statements from the White House that described Obama as surprised by the scope of flaws in HealthCare.gov.
Obama was told that the problems identified by McKinsey were being addressed, Carney said. And Obama had never claimed to be unaware of "red flags" about the site, only of their seriousness.
But since the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, the question has persisted whether the president has been "less than competent or less than candid," said John Pitney, professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. "This tips the scales in favor of less than candid."
Release of the report by the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was part of a broad effort by Republicans to discredit the health care program and to portray the administration as incompetent in implementing the health care law.

DEMOCRATS JOINING CRITICISM
Democrats are increasingly joining the chorus of criticism. Representative Elijah Cummings, a senior Democrat and ally of Obama, called on Tuesday for a White House shakeup over the handling of the rollout.
The botched rollout has hurt the popularity of the initiative, but the decline has been fairly modest, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Monday.
Forty-one percent of Americans expressed support for Obamacare in a survey conducted from Thursday to Monday. That was down 3 percentage points from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken from September 27 to October 1.
Opposition to the healthcare law stood at 59 percent in the latest poll, versus 56 percent in the earlier survey.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,319
1,429
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Sigh. Another example of good intentions not being anywhere near enough.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
It is a true fiasco. It is very well said that the government doesn't know how to get software done. It is much "harder" than many people think :).

It's not just government. I've worked in or consulted to a lot of big companies over the last 25 years. In my experience, there is only one business-critical function that can refuse to commit to hard deadlines and budgets, can miss the soft ones they define for themselves, can often seem to be all about what "can't be done" and can roll out a final product that's not final, won't meet specs until release 3.0 (18 months further down the road), and won't be free of the bugs that are preventing even its basic functions from functioning reliably untl release 1.2.3

IT.

It must be hard. Incredibly hard. And there must be a lot of people who understand that, because if any other business unit in a reasonably well-run corporation tried to get away with that approach, heads would roll.

I'm not even remotely surprised that the ACA website isn't ready for prime time. I'm also not surprised that politics pushed it out there on schedule any way, and failed to speak truth to power to prevent this embarrassment. That's politics. But governement's failure here? More than anything else I suspect it's not quite understanding the culture of IT, and naively expecting that any huge IT project could ever be on time, on budget and functional at launch. When has that ever happened?

Tim
 

mbovaird

Banned
Jan 5, 2013
146
1
0
Why isn't anyone asking the obvious, "$176 million (or whatever it is) for a damn website?" Are you kidding me? I own 4 IT companies - and I can tell you - we could have built that site for $5 million and spent $4 million of that $5 million on Italian sports cars (with Healthcare.gov painted on the sides!) Ridiculous.

If I was in charge of that project, I would have called Larry and said, "hey Larry, can you and your Google team create this site for us? We will let you put your little Google search engine bar on the site. A win/win."

Who in the hell would hired a Canadian company (and by the way, I'm Canadian), who off shores to India to resources who have only a few months of experience, to build a U.S. healthcare website?

The problem fundamentally is Government rules & regulations. They need to be changed. They need to allow the people making the decisions greater flexibility in selection and consequently, with this greater authority, accountability.

Here's a better solution (if we must change the status quo): Medicare for everyone. Next question?

Obamacare was nothing more than a (bad) piece of legislation full of compromises that neither side loved. At least if they had pushed for Medicare for everyone, its a system that has at least been working for many years and had many of those years to work out the kinks. If they had spent all the Obamacare money on ridding Medicare of fraud - pushed for Medicare for everyone - heck, we might actually be getting somewhere.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Why isn't anyone asking the obvious, "$176 million (or whatever it is) for a damn website?" Are you kidding me? I own 4 IT companies - and I can tell you - we could have built that site for $5 million and spent $4 million of that $5 million on Italian sports cars (with Healthcare.gov painted on the sides!) Ridiculous.

If I was in charge of that project, I would have called Larry and said, "hey Larry, can you and your Google team create this site for us? We will let you put your little Google search engine bar on the site. A win/win."

Who in the hell would hired a Canadian company (and by the way, I'm Canadian), who off shores to India to resources who have only a few months of experience, to build a U.S. healthcare website?

The problem fundamentally is Government rules & regulations. They need to be changed. They need to allow the people making the decisions greater flexibility in selection and consequently, with this greater authority, accountability.

Here's a better solution (if we must change the status quo): Medicare for everyone. Next question?

Obamacare was nothing more than a (bad) piece of legislation full of compromises that neither side loved. At least if they had pushed for Medicare for everyone, its a system that has at least been working for many years and had many of those years to work out the kinks. If they had spent all the Obamacare money on ridding Medicare of fraud - pushed for Medicare for everyone - heck, we might actually be getting somewhere.

I'd love to be able to buy into Medicare. Millions of small to mid-sized companies would love to be able to buy into Medicare. The problem is that Medicare works. It provides great care and great service to millions of Americans, and it actually controls costs. Sometimes too much, yes, but on balance it works or providers all over America would be turning down the work; they're not. But Medicare available to individuals, small companies, eventually, inevitably large companies, would cut the margins of the healthcare industry and the drug industry and end private insurance as we know it. The lobby against even proposing such a thing is incredibly powerful. This is probably the best example of how badly out of whack representative democracy has become, how incapable it is of representing the needs of the people.

And yes, Obamacare is a mess of a law, but not just because of compromise, but because a very large part of the lawmakers working on it weren't trying to compromise at all; they were trying to make it completely dysfunctional, incapable of surviving, broken at birth. They may have succeeded.

Tim
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing