3 ms·
This is one of many audits conducted as part of the IG's review of the healthcare.gov rollout. The purpose of this audit was to determine if existing rules rega
by tssva 11y ago
This is one of many audits conducted as part of the IG's review of the healthcare.gov rollout. The purpose of this audit was to determine if existing rules regarding contract management were followed.
It in no way claims that taking a 96 hour training course would have fixed the rollout of healthcare.gov or even that the contract management failings were the primary reason for the failure of the rollout.
- powera 11y agoI hate to say that the (lousy) article claims exactly what you say the audit doesn't claim. It specifically describes "how shoddy oversight by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which manages federal health programs including Obamacare, contributed to the website’s early struggles."
- jcranmer 11y ago"contributed to" ≠ "caused"
- brandonb 11y agoThe other reports suffer from the same problem -- they're focused on whether paperwork was filled out correctly. That's not what killed the project. To the extent these reports are read, I think they lead people to focus on the wrong things. I think the IG reports would be much better if they just did the following: interview the engineers who worked on the original version. Ask them what the problems were. Then, interview the engineers (from both the "tech surge" and the contractors) who lived through the process of getting the site working. Ask them what changed. Write those things down.