Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






The on-the-fly Obamacare insurance industry patch offers a revealing moment for the law all the same, one that highlights how unfinished, unaccountable, and unworkable the health law continues to be.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obamacare Workaround Reveals
Unaccountable, Unworkable Law

Reason.com
This week, the administration announced that it would be employing another manual workaround, this time for critical insurer payment systems. In this case, it's not because the payment system is broken. Instead, it's because the part of the system that is supposed to both calculate how much money the government owes insurers in premium subsidy and cost-sharing payments and make the appropriate payments simply hasn't been built yet.

What hasn't been built can't be used, but insurers need to be paid in order for the system to function. So the administration has decided to require insurers to estimate how much they are owed and submit payment requests manually. Later, after the systems are built, the plan is to sort out the details and figure out the exact amounts that should have been billed, then reconcile any differences.

Because it deals with the insurance industry side of the system, this temporary, technical tweak will probably garner far less attention than the ongoing problems with the consumer side of the federal exchange system. But the on-the-fly patch offers a revealing moment for the law all the same, one that highlights how unfinished, unaccountable, and unworkable the health law continues to be.

On the most basic level, the newly proposed patch suggests how much work remains on simply constructing the essential technical infrastructure necessary to make Obamacare's exchange-based insurance scheme work. Some 30 to 40 percent of the functionality remains incomplete, according to Henry Chao, the Medicare technology official who oversaw the development of the exchanges. And the features that remain to be built are vital to the system's functionality.

The core service that health insurers provide is paying for eligible claims by beneficiaries. But if insurers don't get paid themselves, they can't cut checks for those claims. Some of the larger insurers could finance delays, at least for a little while, but as former Medicare official Kevin Lucia tells Reuters, smaller insurance plans, which are heavily represented in the health law's exchanges, aren't well equipped to do so. Plan providers need that money, and they need it soon if they're going to be able to actually provide insurance to their plan members.

The fact that these critical systems haven't been built--months after the launch of the exchanges and with just weeks to go until insurers need to start being paid--makes it clear that the implementation effort still lags far behind. And if the rollout of portions that remain incomplete resembles the rollout so far, that means there are lots of new problems still to come.

But it's not just that there's a lot of work still to do. The insurer payment workaround also highlights how much of Obamacare's buggy implementation is still being managed on a temporary, ad hoc basis. The administration is flying a broken vessel without a flight plan.

Significant delays started early this year, when the administration decided to hold off on implementing the single most critical part of the small-business exchange system. Then, in mid-summer, reporting requirements for employers, along with the employer mandate and income verification requirements, were delayed too. Since the launch of the law, we've seen further delays in the Spanish language website, Medicaid data transfer systems that are necessary to facilitate coverage, and the federal small-business exchange, which has now been completely delayed by a year. Last month, the White House proposed an administrative tweak in response to public anger over a wave of plan cancellations, one that, if it has a significant effect, could further undermine the health law's enrollment scheme.

The legal authority to implement many of these changes is dubious, but the administration seems more concerned with charging ahead than with accounting for legal niceties. As with the insurer payment tweak, if need be, they'll sort it all out later.

These aren't the signs of an administration that is prepared to effectively handle the rollout of the largest and most complicated domestic policy in a generation; quite the opposite. They're the signs of an administration that is struggling keep its signature initiative afloat, somehow. They're just making it as they go along, and hoping that eventually it all works out.

Will this latest workaround buy the administration some time? Perhaps. Insurers seem to prefer it to the alternative of not getting paid. But buying time is about all it will do.

It's also worth remembering what happened the last time Obama pointed people frustrated with the online system toward a manual alternative: It turned out that the call centers and the pen-and-paper enrollments he said could help move people through the enrollment process were dependent on the same broken web system that was causing all the problems in the first. It was a workaround that didn't work. Ultimately, what the long list of tweaks, delays, and temporary patches to the law suggest is that, as passed, written, and envisioned by its Democrat authors, the law itself doesn't work either.

Peter Suderman is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 12/05/2013








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server