Obamacare by the numbers

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Oregon:
In January 2013, the state won a $226 million federal grant to build and operate the system.
Click to expand...
In addition to the $226 million grant, Cover Oregon was also the recipient of almost $80 million more in federal cash, including a $48.1 million Early Innovator grant awarded in the hope that the system could eventually serve as a model for other state-based exchanges. This was the second largest of the Early Innovator grants handed out.
Click to expand...
In the months prior to launch, Oregon's ambitions were lauded, with The Washington Post suggesting in May 2013 that it "may be the White House's favorite health exchange." There were adulatory profiles of the state's exchange technology in publications such as Government Technology and Information Week.
Click to expand...
In August, the state became the first to announce that its online functionality would be delayed
Click to expand...
Initially, state officials indicated that the setback would last only a few weeks. But at the end of October, the system was still plagued by technical problems.
Click to expand...
A scathing report in The Oregonian revealed that Maximus, a quality assurance firm hired to keep tabs on the project, had repeatedly filed critical reports indicating that the project was risky, poorly managed, and unlikely to be ready on time. In response to one particularly critical report from the consultants, the exchange's chief information officer, Carolyn Lawson, had threatened to withhold payment unless the company delivered a rewrite with a different verdict.
Click to expand...
State officials had pressed on anyway, spending $9 million on a twee advertising campaign featuring folk singer Laura Gibson—a contract that was expanded to $21 million in October, even as the glitches multiplied.
Click to expand...
In the following months, Cover Oregon completely collapsed. Five senior officials involved in the project resigned. In April, state officials decided to scrap all existing work on the state-run exchange and join the federal portal.
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $305.2 million

Maryland:
But the Maryland site failed immediately after going live and never recovered. The exchange director resigned in December and investigations found that officials had been warned repeatedly by outside consultants that the project faced significant risks. In March the state fired one of its tech contractors, Noridian Healthcare Solutions. And in April the state decided to toss its existing exchange technology and try again with software copied from Connecticut.
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $171 million

Massachusettes:
Emails obtained by the Boston Herald found that state officials hoped to build "the absolute Rolls-Royce of any health exchange." But the updated, Obamacare-compliant system never worked. State officials fired their tech vendor, scrapped the entire system, and requested $121 million to start over on a new exchange.
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $179 million

Nevada:

Plagued by bugs, delays, and outages, the Xerox-built system never functioned enough to be usable for most people. The state only signed up a third of its target of 118,000 people for coverage. The exchange director announced his resignation in February, and in April an independent assessment by consultants at Deloitte reported that "the current project team has not proven they can successfully deliver the required management, processes or solution to successfully deliver an operational exchange."

At the end of May, the state's exchange board voted to scrap its system and partner with the federal exchange for the coming open enrollment season, while working toward rebuilding a new system for later years
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $90.7 million

Minnesota:

When the system launched in October, it sputtered, and was nearly impossible to use. By mid-December, the exchange director had resigned, and Optum, an outside consulting group, found that there was no clear management structure in place; the project was operating in "crisis mode." There were at least 210 software defects, Optum reported, and rebuilding the system could take as long as two years.
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $153.7 million

Vermont:

But Vermont relied on CGI Federal, which also built the flawed federal system, and months after launch much of the planned functionality remained offline. At the end of April, about 8,000 state residents were stuck in coverage limbo due to ongoing problems with the site.

An independent review reported that the state and its tech vendors were in over their heads. They "had never completed a software development project of this magnitude and did not fully understand the Affordable Care Act."
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $165.2 million

Hawaii:

In December, the state's exchange director stepped down. Technical problems persisted throughout the open enrollment period, and so did low sign-up numbers. By the end of March, just 8,592 people had signed up for insurance through the state exchange, making it the most costly in the nation on a per-person basis, with a price tag of $23,899 per sign-up, according to a report by a former HHS official.
Click to expand...

Total federal grants: $205 million

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/01/obamacare-by-the-numbers/2
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
With all of this money spent there are fewer people in America now with health Insurance than there were under the old system, and the sh*t has not hit the fan yet. Wait until after the November election and the groups start getting their cancellation letters.

If we had kept the old system and just used these millions to buy insurance for those without it we would be better off.

And realize this . the spending aint over yet.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Tilted said:
Forest and trees. It's gonna cost us $40 Billion-ish this year to pay for the subsidies and Medicaid expansion (even with so many states not taking it) and $140 Billion-ish in FY2016.
Click to expand...

Cutting the deficit turned out to be pretty darned expensive, huh?
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Hijinx said:
With all of this money spent there are fewer people in America now with health Insurance than there were under the old system, and the sh*t has not hit the fan yet. Wait until after the November election and the groups start getting their cancellation letters.

If we had kept the old system and just used these millions to buy insurance for those without it we would be better off.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the law, I of course think it's wrong in principle and is likely to be a disaster in practice. But what do you base that bold-ed assertion on?

Gallup's tracking (which I wouldn't necessarily hold up as the paragon of accuracy), for instance, shows a significant decline over the last few quarters in the rate of uninsured adult Americans. It has the rate at 13.4%, back below where it was when ObamaCare was passed - by 3%. And the full impact in that regard wasn't expected in the first year, it was expected to build over several years.

Hijinx said:
And realize this . the spending aint over yet.
Click to expand...

That's for sure. It's barely begun.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Gilligan said:
Cutting the deficit turned out to be pretty darned expensive, huh?
Click to expand...

Those cost estimates have actually come down from where they were earlier. The Medicaid expansion, e.g, is set to cost less than originally expected.

I'm sure proponents of the bill, to the extent they would talk about it, would still claim that the legislation will on-net reduce deficits because of the increased receipts from it and other supposed cost savings. I don't have a good enough sense how likely it is that those cost savings will actually be realized and to what degree they will be. So... maybe it is deficit saving, maybe it isn't. It doesn't much matter to me, the legislation is wrong - and on top of that it's crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top