
From the Start, Signs of Trouble at Health Portal - Cbasedlifeform
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/from-the-start-signs-of-trouble-at-health-portal.html?hp
======
Cbasedlifeform
Unbloodybelievable. Or perhaps not, given that it is a .gov IT project.

 _Deadline after deadline was missed. The biggest contractor, CGI Federal, was
awarded its $94 million contract in December 2011. But the government was so
slow in issuing specifications that the firm did not start writing software
code until this spring, according to people familiar with the process. As late
as the last week of September, officials were still changing features of the
Web site, HealthCare.gov, and debating whether consumers should be required to
register and create password-protected accounts before they could shop for
health plans._

~~~
ffethrowaway
I can't/won't say much more than that I worked on this project, and it's not
entirely true that CGI Federal didn't start working on code until this spring.
It is true, however, that the vast majority of the requirements were not
finalized anywhere near early enough (and even then not truly finalized),
causing a significant amount of rewrite and churn.

------
azernik
What seems to me to be the critical bit:

 _One highly unusual decision, reached early in the project, proved critical:
the Medicare and Medicaid agency assumed the role of project quarterback,
responsible for making sure each separately designed database and piece of
software worked with the others, instead of assigning that task to a lead
contractor._

They seem to have not realized that this is a major engineering task in its
own.

------
julienchastang
I believe the United States should have universal health care. That said, this
looks like yet another government technology fiasco. My favorite technology
disaster story is the Denver International Airport automated baggage handling
system that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and never worked. I
wish I could have those responsible for building healthcare.gov examine that
case study.

~~~
hga
Although like we're hearing about last minute rush rush from Cbasedlifeform
etc., the Denver fiasco was in part the same sort of thing, after another
company was called in because the first had failed so badly.

As I remember, they said "We just might be able to make one that works if you
supply X, Y and Z" where X was clean power. Which the airport turned out not
to be able to supply, probably along with some of the others.

On the other hand, eventually completely punting like I read Denver did is not
an option for Obamacare, short of outright repeal.

Also check out reports that the back end is failing hard:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/federa...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/federal-health-exchange-sending-confusing-enrollment-information-to-
insurers/2013/10/11/a2f3ce2e-31ec-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_print.html)

Imagine you're an insurer and you get multiple reports of someone enrolling
and canceling. If they don't jump on this real hard real soon, a lot of people
will end up with _no_ insurance through no fault of their own come Jan 1st....

