From Concept to Collapse: Lessons from the HealthCare.gov Disaster
From policy to structure
Sellers H. Crisp
· views
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, marking a significant milestone in U.S. healthcare reform. This landmark legislation, often referred to as “Obamacare,” aimed to increase healthcare access to all Americans. Central to ACA’s implementation was HealthCare.gov, an online platform designed to facilitate the comparison, purchase, and eligibility of health insurance plans. However, the launch of HealthCare.gov on October 1, 2013, became a pivotal moment, not for its success, but for the array of failures that exposed critical flaws in leadership and structural organization within the federal government’s approach to large-scale IT projects.
In this examination, I focus on leadership and structure as the main contributors to the failure of HealthCare.gov. These aspects are intertwined and pertinent to understanding the complexities involved in the project's failure. The lack of qualified and decisive leadership led to ineffective decision-making, delays, and a lack of accountability. Decisions made by political and career leaders were often reactive rather than proactive, failing to address the mounting problems effectively. A fragmented chain of command and the absence of a coherent structure resulted in poor coordination among numerous contractors. This lack of a clear hierarchy and direction exacerbated issues of duplication, overlap, and poor integration across the project.
Leadership Failures
The absence of effective leadership was evident in several ways. The decision-making process was slow and reactive, with leaders failing to anticipate and mitigate problems before they escalated. This was compounded by a lack of accountability, as no single individual or team was responsible for overseeing the project in its entirety. The fragmented chain of command meant that decisions were often made in isolation, without considering their impact on the overall project.
Structural Failures
The structure of the project was equally problematic. The involvement of multiple contractors, each with their own responsibilities and priorities, led to significant coordination challenges. The lack of a clear hierarchy meant that there was no central authority to oversee the project and ensure that all parts were working together effectively. This resulted in duplication of efforts, overlapping responsibilities, and poor integration of different components.
Policy Recommendations
To address these issues, I suggest the establishment of a protocol for appointing qualified leaders with relevant expertise in large-scale IT projects. Additionally, a system must be implemented for proactive decision-making and accountability at all leadership levels. Regarding structure, there needs to be a more streamlined and integrated project structure with a clear chain of command. This will ensure better coordination among contractors and internal teams, eliminating duplication and overlap, while maintaining positive communication and collaboration.
Historical Context and Roadmap
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), played a key role in the development and implementation of HealthCare.gov. Originally the Health Care Financing Administration, CMS was renamed in 2001. Over the years, Congress expanded Medicare to cover more people, including the disabled and those with end-stage renal disease. Today, CMS administers major healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Its mission is to ensure effective, up-to-date healthcare coverage and promote quality care for beneficiaries.
In March 2010, most of the responsibility to implement the ACA fell on HHS, including state-based and federally run healthcare marketplaces. HHS spent the first year hiring technology consultants and planning the initial version of HealthCare.gov. This first iteration, known as the HealthCare.gov “Plan Finder,” allowed users to estimate premiums based on their information. By 2011, Plan Finder had received 2 million visitors, which HHS viewed as an early success.
Fragmented Leadership and Delayed Decision-Making
One of the earliest failures was the disagreement among HHS officials and states regarding whether marketplaces would be state-run or federal. HHS leadership believed that most states would choose to host their own marketplace, but this prediction proved inaccurate. The delays in finalizing decisions on state participation led to significant setbacks in the project timeline.
In January 2011, HHS determined that the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) could not manage such a crucial part of the ACA. OCIIO was understaffed and lacked the infrastructure and budget of an operating division. Consequently, the group was moved to CMS, which brought about new challenges, including the division of staff into multiple departments and the spread of office spaces across Maryland and Washington, D.C. This fragmentation further hindered coordination and communication.
Contract Management Issues
CMS’ approach to contract development for HealthCare.gov was flawed from the outset. The selection of a “cost-plus-fixed-fee” contract with CGI Federal offered little incentive for cost control and high-quality output. Additionally, CMS failed to define key elements of HealthCare.gov, leading to misunderstandings and delays. The management of contracts was disjointed, with technical aspects overseen by one group and contract administration by another, causing confusion among contractors about their roles and responsibilities.
Conclusion
The HealthCare.gov failure serves as a reminder of the challenges inherent in large-scale government projects. The absence of decisive leadership and a coherent project structure were central to the project's failure. Future projects of similar magnitude require skilled leaders in IT project management who can make proactive, timely decisions. Additionally, a clear hierarchy and well-defined responsibilities are essential to mitigate issues of overlap, duplication, and mismanagement. The lessons from HealthCare.gov highlight the importance of strategic planning, effective leadership, and robust project management in achieving successful outcomes in government IT projects.
Bibliography
Anthopoulos, Leonidas, et al. “Why E-Government Projects Fail? An Analysis of the Healthcare.Gov Website.” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, 2016, pp. 161–173.
“CCIIO-Wide War Room Notes 10.2.13 AM,” October 2, 2013.
Fandrich, Samuel. “Complexity in National Policy Implementation: A Top-Down Look at the Failure of Healthcare.Gov.” Master in Public Administration Theses, 2014.
Government Accountability Office, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Status of CMS Efforts to Establish Federally Facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges, 2013.
“HealthCare.Gov: A Review of Operations and Enrollment,” 2016.
Lee, Gwanhoo, and Justin Brumer. “Managing Mission-Critical Government Software Projects: Lessons Learned...” Center for The Business of Government, 2017.
Levinson, Daniel R. “HealthCare.Gov: Case Study of CMS Management of the Federal Marketplace.” HealthCare.gov: Case Study of CMS Management of the Federal Marketplace (OEI-06-14-00350), February 22, 2016.
Life in the Trenches of healthcare.gov. YouTube, dotScale 2014, 2014.
Light, Paul C. “A Cascade of Failures: Why Government Fails, and How to Stop It.” Brookings, July 14, 2014.
Light, Paul C. "A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse it." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Schlesinger, Leonard A, and Brian Kenny. The Spectacular Fall and Fix of HealthCare.gov. Cold Call Podcast, Harvard Business School, October 20, 2016.
Velocity NY 2014 Keynote: “One Year After healthcare.gov...” YouTube, O’Reilly, 2014.