3 ms·

>This is the result of incredibly complex specs being implemented by teams of dozens or hundreds, including offshore work and highly distributed teams. The kind

>This is the result of incredibly complex specs being implemented by teams of dozens or hundreds, including offshore work and highly distributed teams. The kind of evil plots suggested here would be passing through not just executives, but architects, product owners, scrum masters, lead engineers, and the delightfully unpredictable hands of the cheapest programmers money can buy. Perhaps that is the evil plan working as intended

ixtli 9y ago
Yeah I mean the fact is that revenue comes from people not collecting benefits.
- beat 9y ago
  Nope. The vast majority of benefits are processed without incident or complexity, between the medical provider and the insurer, with no action required by the insured. Rigging some UI for hand-entry of claims in a way that suppresses only some, but not all? That's not going to make an appreciable difference in the bottom line.
  - ixtli 9y ago
    I'm not sure what the "nope" is in response to: Insurance companies profit when people don't collect on their benefits. If I pay and don't use it, they win. This is why companies that self-insure take out further insurance on their pool in case someone does actually get very sick and it drains the pool, which does happen more often than you'd think.
beat 9y ago
Not really. You can find the same sort of gruesome inefficiency and bad UX in systems built by similar organizations that are supposed encourage, rather than discourage activity. The deeper problem here is a focus on internal business needs (and terminology) as the "customers", rather than end users. Heck, I've seen the same basic opaqueness and clumsy, jargon-laden UX on things as simple as credit card terminals. The only time you see really good UX for these things is in the startup (or post-startup, ie Amazon or Google) world, where UX for end users becomes a top-level requirement, and driving clicks is measured and actively improved.

ixtli 9y ago

Yeah I mean the fact is that revenue comes from people not collecting benefits.

beat 9y ago
Nope. The vast majority of benefits are processed without incident or complexity, between the medical provider and the insurer, with no action required by the insured. Rigging some UI for hand-entry of claims in a way that suppresses only some, but not all? That's not going to make an appreciable difference in the bottom line.
- ixtli 9y ago
  I'm not sure what the "nope" is in response to: Insurance companies profit when people don't collect on their benefits. If I pay and don't use it, they win. This is why companies that self-insure take out further insurance on their pool in case someone does actually get very sick and it drains the pool, which does happen more often than you'd think.

beat 9y ago

Not really. You can find the same sort of gruesome inefficiency and bad UX in systems built by similar organizations that are supposed encourage, rather than discourage activity. The deeper problem here is a focus on internal business needs (and terminology) as the "customers", rather than end users. Heck, I've seen the same basic opaqueness and clumsy, jargon-laden UX on things as simple as credit card terminals. The only time you see really good UX for these things is in the startup (or post-startup, ie Amazon or Google) world, where UX for end users becomes a top-level requirement, and driving clicks is measured and actively improved.