3 ms·

Advertising, for one: With at least $86 million earmarked for ads, Covered California is counting on global marketing firms to get the job done: Weber Shandwic

by byoung2 13y ago

Advertising, for one: With at least $86 million earmarked for ads, Covered California is counting on global marketing firms to get the job done: Weber Shandwick and Ogilvy Public Relations. According to Covered California, ads will appear in multiple languages on TV, radio, newspapers, billboards and social media. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/California-could-see-300-million-ad-blitz-for-Obamas-health-care-overhaul-216821451.html http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/California-could-se... EDIT: It looks like they also opened 3 call centers, with about 400 operators, with plans for a 4th next month with 150 more. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-he...

briandear 13y ago
yes, but according to this LA Times article[1], it was a "$313 million enrollment system." To me that implies that the enrollment system itself cost $313 million as opposed to the entire budget for Covered California. But even allowing for $86 million in advertising (which is still insane considering that the entire Obama campaign spent a little less than a billion -- and that was for an entire country and that money did not all go towards advertising. So $86 million for a single state? That number itself is mind-blowingly ridiculous. Allowing that the $86 million came from the $313 million, we're still looking at over $200 million to build a software application. I'm pretty sure the TurboTax guys didn't spend that much on their first application -- and they're dealing with 50 states plus the federal government's tax laws that change every year. I just wonder how many uninsured people in California could have been covered with that $313 million they've spent building a web application that's trying to help the uninsured. There are apparently 7 million uninsured in California (the highest number and percentage in the country) so that comes out to about $500 per person. Considering that there will not be a 100% insurance rate in California, it seems like that money spent to build a software application could have covered a pretty high percentage of those uninsured. I'm obviously simplifying, but it seems like the goal of helping the uninsured took an expensive, wrong turn somewhere. That 313 million doesn't include the ongoing salaries and expenses of actually running Covered California. The amount of money spent is staggering considering that not a single dollar of that is actually going to pay any healthcare -- it's only a service to help people find insurance. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-he...
- byoung2 13y ago
  Here you go: http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/FinancialReports.aspx http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/FinancialReports.aspx Looks like $120 million for the 4 call centers, $100 million for outreach and advertising, $50 million "other", and $30 million "eligibility and enrollment". Maybe the enrollment system is in that $30 million?

by byoung2 13y ago

briandear 13y ago

yes, but according to this LA Times article[1], it was a "$313 million enrollment system." To me that implies that the enrollment system itself cost $313 million as opposed to the entire budget for Covered California. But even allowing for $86 million in advertising (which is still insane considering that the entire Obama campaign spent a little less than a billion -- and that was for an entire country and that money did not all go towards advertising. So $86 million for a single state? That number itself is mind-blowingly ridiculous. Allowing that the $86 million came from the $313 million, we're still looking at over $200 million to build a software application. I'm pretty sure the TurboTax guys didn't spend that much on their first application -- and they're dealing with 50 states plus the federal government's tax laws that change every year. I just wonder how many uninsured people in California could have been covered with that $313 million they've spent building a web application that's trying to help the uninsured. There are apparently 7 million uninsured in California (the highest number and percentage in the country) so that comes out to about $500 per person. Considering that there will not be a 100% insurance rate in California, it seems like that money spent to build a software application could have covered a pretty high percentage of those uninsured. I'm obviously simplifying, but it seems like the goal of helping the uninsured took an expensive, wrong turn somewhere. That 313 million doesn't include the ongoing salaries and expenses of actually running Covered California. The amount of money spent is staggering considering that not a single dollar of that is actually going to pay any healthcare -- it's only a service to help people find insurance. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-he...

byoung2 13y ago
Here you go: http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/FinancialReports.aspx http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/FinancialReports.aspx Looks like $120 million for the 4 call centers, $100 million for outreach and advertising, $50 million "other", and $30 million "eligibility and enrollment". Maybe the enrollment system is in that $30 million?