Deloitte should be liable for the medical bills of patients who it wrongly denied coverage for.
They saved money by skipping QA, they can pay for the fallout of their bugs.
Removed by mod
Why would they get in trouble when they are meeting the goals of the program?
Kicking people out of Medicare is the point. Whether they’re supposed to be on the program is a secondary concern.
Exactly.
Yup.
That’s the distinction between “should” and “will”
Removed by mod
I agree.
I also wish Deloitte would stop winning contracts to build their shitty, cobbled together tech solutions for pennies (to the contractors) on the dollar. Their track record for such activity is actually kinda garbage in the industry.
Will keep happening as long as contracts are awarded based on flashy proposals.
From your fingers to the will of the people.
God damn right. They want to outsource jobs AND cause people harm due to their ignorance?? (lead pipes, lead paint, asbestos, need I say more)
Fuck that.
Or, how about a small fine. Maybe 5% of the extra profit they made in this scam and they don’t even have to stop or admit wrong doing
^ this is what will likely happen
The “algorithmic system” didn’t design and build itself. What a bullshit cop-out.
Ah, the ‘the system said it was so, so it had to be so’ excuse.
Same stance the UK Post Office took with Horizon. A fucking stupid stance…
deleted by creator
Alright team, I’m bringing the opposite opinion to this thread. Bring your pitchforks.
Two things :
-
Hanlon’s razor. Consultants are not mensa candidates. They are ordinary people who sometimes do a shit job.
-
Complexity. Each state has its own wildly complex eligibility and availability rules. Each insurer within each state, equally so. As much as this article shits on Deloitte for having 20+ state contracts, that doesn’t mean 1 common platform / common solution. People within the fediverse - being somewhat more tech inclined - should have some empathy for this
I hate Deloitte as much as the next guy, but why no hatred for the politicians (or special interest groups comprised of insurers) that wrote opaque state-based legislation? Speaking of insurers, why no hate for them? Whether private or public - they literally have a vested interest in denying coverage…
If we are going to throw stones, let’s find the right villain.
The complexity is the point. The less people willing or able to jump through all the necessary hoops to receive their healthcare through the system, the less money they have to pay out. Adding more complexity in the form of yet another opaque approval system adds many more hoops to get through, which is actually the entire purpose of that system. Deloitte knew this going in.
Yes, I have sympathy for the individuals who have to build this system, however I have absolutely zero sympathy for the company that put it into practice.
Yes, the medicare system is needlessly complex, however Deloitte decided to replace manpower with cheaper automation which had the side effect of saving them work by increasing rejections.
The world also happens to be complex. Enough so that both things can be true.
Agree with all your points. I just wanted to remind people to hate the architect (in this case politicians and insurers), not just the coder.
Seems the same with State unemployment benefits too, just maybe not as deadly.
Who’s not hating insurers? They’re awful.
I see we have a consultant in our midsts.
-
