Case Study a Shaky Start for Healthcare.Gov Please see attached documents for full explanation A Shaky Start for Healthcare.gov The Patient Protection and

Case Study a Shaky Start for Healthcare.Gov Please see attached documents for full explanation A Shaky Start for Healthcare.gov
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, is considered
the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s legacy. Essential to Obama’s health care reform
plan is Healthcare.gov, a health insurance exchange website that facilitates the sale of private
health insurance plans to U.S. residents, assists people eligible to sign up for Medicaid, and has a
separate marketplace for small businesses.
The site allows users to compare prices on health insurance plans in their states, to enroll
in a plan they choose, and to find out whether they qualify for government health care subsidies.
Users must sign up and create their own specific account first, providing some personal information, to receive detailed information about available health care plans in their area.
Healthcare.gov was launched on October 1, 2013, as promised, but visitors quickly encountered numerous technical problems. Software that assigned digital identities to enrollees and
ensured that they saw only their own personal data was overwhelmed. Customers encountered
cryptic error messages and could not log on to create accounts. Many users received quotes that
were incorrect because the feature used prices based on just two age groups. It was estimated that
only 1 percent of interested consumers were able to enroll through the site for the first week of
operations, and many applications sent to insurers contained erroneous information. Thousands
of enrollees for HealthCare.gov—at least one in five at the height of the problems—received
inaccurate assignments to Medicaid or to private health plans. Some people were wrongly denied
coverage.
Insurers received enrollment files from the federal exchange that were incomplete or inaccurate, as many as one in ten. The information includes who is enrolling and what subsidies
they may receive. Some insurers reported being deluged with phone calls from people who believed they had signed up for a particular health plan, only to find that the company had no record of the enrollment. Enrollment problems with insurers persisted into November.
U.S. chief technology officer Todd Park stated on October 6
that Healthcare.gov’s glitches were caused by an unexpectedly high volume of users. Between
50,000 and 60,000 had been expected, but the site had to handle 250,000 simultaneous users.
More than 8.1 million people visited Healthcare.gov between October 1, 2013, and October 4,
2013.
White House officials later admitted that Healthcare.gov’s problems were not just
caused by high traffic volume but also by software and system design issues. Stress tests performed by contractors a day before the launch date revealed that the site slowed substantially
with only 1100 simultaneous users, far fewer than the 50,000 to 60,000 that were anticipated.
Technical experts found out that the site was riddled with hardware and software defects,
amounting to more than 600 items that needed to be fixed.
A major contributor to these problems was the part of the system’s design that required
users to create individual accounts before shopping for health insurance. This meant that before
users could shop for coverage, they must input personal data that would be exchanged among
separate computer systems built or run by multiple vendors, including CGI Group, developer
of Healthcare.gov, Quality Software Services, and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of
this web of systems failed to work properly, users would be blocked from entering the exchange
marketplace. A bottleneck had been created where these systems interacted with a software component called Oracle Identity Manager supplied by Oracle Corporation that was embedded in the
government’s identity-checking system. This problem might have been averted if the system allowed users to browse plans without first going through the complex registration process.
Problems, including pull-down menus that only worked intermittently and excruciatingly
long wait times, persisted into the third week of operations. For some weeks in October, the site
was down 60 percent of the time.
What happened to Healthcare.gov is another example of IT project management gone
awry, which often happens with large technology projects, especially those for the U.S. federal
government. There was no single leader overseeing the Healthcare.gov implementation. The
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coordinated the development effort.
However, CMS had a siloed management structure, and no single unit was designated to take
charge of the entire project.
CMS parceled out the work for building and implementing the Healthcare.gov system to
a number of outside contractors. The front end of the website (including the user interface) was
developed by the start-up Development Seed. The back end (where all the heavy-duty processing
of enrollment data and transactions with insurers takes place) was contracted to CGI Federal, a
subsidiary of the Canadian multinational CGI Group, which received $231 million for the project. CGI then subcontracted much of its work to other companies. This is common in large government projects. Functions relating to digital identity authentication were contracted to Experian, the global information services company noted for its credit-checking expertise.
CMS set deadlines for the contractors, who were expected to attend meetings to hammer
out the details of the specifications for the website, but the computer specialists skipped some of
those sessions. Contractors for different parts of the system barely communicated with each
other.
Some IT experts also criticized CMS’s decision to use database software from a company
called MarkLogic, which handles data management differently from more mainstream database
management systems of companies such as IBM and Oracle. Work proceeded more slowly because so few people were familiar with MarkLogic, and MarkLogic continued to perform below
expectations after the Healthcare.gov website was launched.
The website had not been thoroughly tested before it went live, so a number of software
and hardware defects had not been detected. Testing of the system by insurers had been scheduled for July but didn’t begin until the third week in September. CMS was responsible for usertesting the system during the final weeks.
Technology experts also faulted Healthcare.gov’s developers for trying to go live with
all parts of a large and very complex system all at once. It would have been better to roll out system functions gradually. CGI believed that a full-function Healthcare.gov with all the anticipated bells and whistles was an unrealistic target. Given the time required to complete and test
the software, it was impossible to launch a full-function exchange by October 1, but government
officials insisted that October 1 was not negotiable and had become impatient with CGI’s pattern
of excuses for missed deadlines. The Obama administration kept on modifying regulations and
policies until summer 2013, which meant that contractors had to deal with changing requirements.
The Healthcare.gov enrollment system is very complex. It connects to other federal
computer networks, including the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Personnel Management, and the Peace Corps. It has
to verify a considerable amount of personal information, including income and immigration status.
Vital components were never secured. There was insufficient access to a data center to
prevent the website from crashing. No backup system for a website crash was created. The interaction between the data center where the information is stored and the system was so poorly configured that it had to be redesigned.
CMS had several warnings between March and July that the project was going off-track
but didn’t seek deep White House involvement or change the leadership structure, according to
officials, congressional aides, and emails from the period. An administration report noted that inadequate management oversight and coordination among technical teams prevented real-time decision making and efficient responses to address the issues with the site.
The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. detailed the project’s potential risks in a presentation between March 28 and April 8 to the top CMS official, Marilyn Tavenner, to Health and
Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and to White House Chief Technology Officer
Todd Park. McKinsey’s report anticipated many of the site’s pitfalls and urged the administration
to name a single project leader to streamline decision-making. It also emphasized the importance
of White House support for CMS to meet the October 1 launch date. Nevertheless, according to
documents from the period and officials, the White House’s minimal involvement in the project’s details didn’t change after the McKinsey report.
The White House assembled experts from government and industry who worked frantically to fix the system. The Obama administration appointed contractor Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI) to coordinate the work involved in fixing the website. QSSI had worked earlier
on the website’s back-end. In January 2014, Accenture replaced CGI Group as the website’s lead
contractor.
Work on fixing the website continued through October and November 2013, and the
website appeared to be working more smoothly. For the vast majority of users,
Healthcare.gov was working more than 90 percent of the time. Response time (the time required
for a web page to load) was reduced from eight seconds to less than one. The incidence of error
messages preventing people from using the site went from 6 percent down to .75 percent, but by
November 30, only 137,000 people had signed up for private health insurance, far fewer than the
government had forecast. Healthcare.gov’s problems also forced the Obama administration to
delay by one year an online exchange for small business.
Reuters reported in mid-October 2013 that the total cost of building Healthcare.gov using contractors had tripled from an initial estimate of $93.7 million to about $292 million. Overall cost for building the website reached $500 million by October 2013. As of February 2014, the
government had committed to paying $800 million for contracts for the site, and the full amount
spent to date is still unknown.
By early 2014, Healthcare.gov was working much better but was not problem-free.
Then HealthCare.gov went down shortly after midnight March 30, 2014, and remained unusable until a day later. Some of the hundreds of thousands of Americans trying to sign up for health
care at the last minute of the enrollment period were unable to do so. Nevertheless, 8 million
people signed up for health care that year.
Kathleen Sebelius resigned as Secretary for Health and Human Services on April 10,
2014, replaced by Sylvia Mathews Burwell on June 9 of that year. On July 30, 2014, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a nonpartisan study finding that
the Healthcare.gov website was developed without effective planning or oversight practices.
These findings were supported by another report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2015. The Inspector General’s investigation
found that the federal government failed to probe fully the past performance of CGI before
awarding its contract and had neglected to put a cap on contractor billings.
After a bumpy debut, Healthcare.gov appeared in 2015 to be running smoothly. There
have been a few minor, short-lived technical glitches. The Obama administration was able to
boast that enrollment of 11 million people in health care plans for 2015 surpassed the president’s
goals.
Sources: Louise Radnofsky, “Poor Oversight, Work Marred Health Care Site’s
Launch,” Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2015; Alex Barinka,“Healthcare.gov Bug Plagues
Obamacare Just before Deadline,” Bloomberg, February 14, 2015; Amy Nordrum,
“Obama’s Healthcare.gov Website Isn’t Consumer-Friendly Enough, Experts Say,” International Business Times, February 18, 2015; Spencer E. Ante and Louise Radnofsky, “New Technical Woes Hobble Health-Insurance Sign-Ups at Zero Hour,” Wall Street Journal, March 31,
2014; “HowHealthCare.gov Was Supposed to Work and How It Didn’t,” New York Times, December 2, 2013; Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Michael D. Shear, “Inside the Race to Rescue a
Health Care Site, and Obama,” New York Times, November 30, 2013; Gautham Nagesh,
“Health Website Problems Weren’t Flagged in Time,” Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2013;
Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky, “Healthcare.gov’s Flaws Found, Fixes Eyed,” Wall
Street Journal, October 10, 2013, and “Federal Health Site Stymied by Lack of Direction,” Wall
Street Journal, October 28, 2013; and Eric Lipton, Jan Austen, and Sharon LaFraniere, “Tension and Flaws before Health Website Crash,” New York Times, November 22, 2013.
Case Study Questions
1.
Why was the HealthCare.gov project so important?
2.
Evaluate the key risk factors in this project.
3.
Classify and describe the problems this project encountered. What people,
organization, and technology factors were responsible for these problems?
4.
What were the economic, political, and social impacts
of Healthcare.gov’s botched implementation?
5.
Describe the steps that should have been taken to prevent a negative outcome in this project.
CIS312
Information Systems for Managers
Assignment: Case Study 4 (75 points)
Read the case study “A Shaky Start for Healthcare.gov” (this can be found as an attachment to the case study in
Week 12 within Moodle).
•
•
•
•
•
The Case Study Review should include (2 to 3 pages)
o This does not include title pages or reference pages
o This is at least 2.5 written pages (page 3 must be at least ½ of a page)
Summary of the case
o This should be thorough enough (but not plagiarized (meaning in your own words)) to give a
reader who has not read the case a very good idea of what is going on
o Somewhere in the summary should be an explanation of what big data is
Answer to the questions at the end of the case which are based on the case, textbook readings or outside
sources (these are not your opinion but you can include comments)
o Chapter 9 is titled Developing and Acquiring Information Systems on pages 318-360 and there is
a lot of information on the topic related to the case throughout this chapter
o Since there are over 42 pages in our text book on this topic you should be able to find a lot of
information to back up your answers to the questions and provide in-text citation.
o Such as question #5 asks about the steps that should have been taken to avoid a negative
outcome on the project. Think SDLC.
Conclusion which is your thoughts on the case and its contents
In completing the case I want at least 3 in-text citations referencing the text book material or an
outside source backing up your comments/answers
Present the paper in Microsoft Office Word document format. Name the file LastName_Case_Study_4.doc and
submit it to the Online Venue (Moodle) by the beginning of Friday class of Week 12.
•
All written assignments and responses should follow either MLA/APA rules
o Title page (in MLA the title is usually on the first page but, the instructor can request a title page
and this is what I am asking for so that there is at least 2.5 full pages of content)
o No paragraph spacing
o Double spaced
o 1” margins (top, bottom, left and right)
o 12pt font size
o Times New Roman
o References and in-text citations follows either the APA or MLA rules
o Can follow link for the Purdue Owl site for information on MLA/APA:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/
Maximum
Assignment Grading Criteria
Points
Case Description
10
All Discussion Questions answered thoroughly
42.5
Conclusion
5
Used textbook and/or outside sources to substantiate discussion
10
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated
ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of
7.5
sources, displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
75
Total:

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Case Study a Shaky Start for Healthcare.Gov Please see attached documents for full explanation A Shaky Start for Healthcare.gov The Patient Protection and
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Homework Market Pro
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Our Unique Features

Custom Papers Means Custom Papers

This is what custom writing means to us: Your essay starts from scratch. Plagiarism is unacceptable. We demand the originality of our academic essay writers and they only deliver authentic and original papers. 100% guaranteed! If your final version is not as expected, we will revise it immediately.

Qualified and Experienced Essay Writers

Our team consists of carefully selected writers with in-depth expertise. Each writer in our team is selected based on their writing skills and experience. Each team member is able to provide plagiarism-free, authentic and high-quality content within a short turnaround time.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Assuarance

We understand you. Spending your hard earned money on a writing service is a big deal. It is a big investment and it is difficult to make the decision. That is why we support our claims with guarantees. We want you to be reassured as soon as you place your order. Here are our guarantees: Your deadlines are important to us. When ordering, please note that delivery will take place no later than the expiry date.

100% Originality & Confidentiality

Every paper we write for every order is 100% original. To support this, we would be happy to provide you with a plagiarism analysis report on request.We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

We help students, business professionals and job seekers around the world in multiple time zones. We also understand that students often keep crazy schedules. No problem. We are there for you around the clock. If you need help at any time, please contact us. An agent is always available for you.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

Our services are second to none. Every time you place an order, you get a personal and original paper of the highest quality.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

While a college paper is the most common order we receive, we want you to understand that we have college writers for virtually everything, including: High school and college essays Papers, book reviews, case studies, lab reports, tests All graduate level projects, including theses and dissertations Admissions and scholarship essays Resumes and CV’s Web content, copywriting, blogs, articles Business writing – reports, marketing material, white papers Research and data collection/analysis of any type.

Admissions

Any Kind of Essay Writing!

Whether you are a high school student struggling with writing five-paragraph essays, an undergraduate management student stressing over a research paper, or a graduate student in the middle of a thesis or dissertation, homeworkmarketpro.com has a writer for you. We can also provide admissions or scholarship essays, a resume or CV, as well as web content or articles. Writing an essay for college admission takes a certain kind of writer. They have to be knowledgeable about your subject and be able to grasp the purpose of the essay.

Reviews

Quality Check and Editing Support

Every paper is subject to a strict editorial and revision process. This is to ensure that your document is complete and accurate and that all of your instructions have been followed carefully including creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Prices and Discounts

We are happy to say that we offer some of the most competitive prices in this industry. Since many of our customers are students, job seekers and small entrepreneurs, we know that money is a problem. Therefore, you will find better prices with us compared to writing services of this calibre.