Is the Congressional Inquiry on Obamacare a ‘Monkey Court’?

The latest from Congress’ hearing on the flawed health care website.

Senior vice president of CGI Federal Cheryl Campbell, group executive vice president for Optum/QSSI Andrew Slavitt, corporate counsel for Equifax Workforce Solutions Lynn Spellecy, and program director for Serco John Lau are sworn in during a hearing on implementation of the Affordable Care Act before the House Energy and Commerce Committee October 24, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
National Journal
National Journal Staff
See more stories about...
National Journal Staff
Oct. 24, 2013, 6:39 a.m.

How angry do mem­bers of Con­gress want to ap­pear about the Health­Care.gov bugs?

Thursday’s House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee hear­ing with sev­er­al ex­ec­ut­ives from the big con­tract­ors be­hind the site gives us a peek.

Or, as Rep. Frank Pal­lone, D-N.J., so grace­fully put it: Wel­come to the “mon­key court.”

The up­shot from the con­tract­ors: It’s not our fault.

They said their pieces of the Health­Care.gov puzzle worked fine when tested in­de­pend­ently, and only crashed once the sys­tem was tested from front to back.

Con­tract­ors also said the Cen­ters for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices (CMS) — not their com­pan­ies — de­cided to launch any­way, des­pite flaws dis­covered in the test­ing. An­drew Slavitt, from QSSI, which built part of the sys­tem, said his com­pany in­formed CMS that more test­ing was needed.

What ap­peared in the testi­mon­ies were the com­plex­it­ies of sev­er­al gov­ern­ment con­tract­ors work­ing on sep­ar­ate, yet ul­ti­mately in­teg­rated sys­tems — with each con­tract­or seem­ingly blind (or par­tially blind) to oth­er as­pects of the web­site con­struc­tion. What came next was oc­ca­sion­ally ob­tuse polit­ic­al grand­stand­ing. With very few an­swers as to what ex­actly went wrong with the web­site. And the an­swers aren’t simple. “Now, I rep­res­ent Sil­ic­on Val­ley, and I find this very hard to fol­low,” Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, D-Cal­if., said.

Here are some high­lights, which we’ll be up­dat­ing throughout the hear­ing.

Up­date (1:14 p.m.): CGI’s Camp­bell ac­know­ledged re­ports that in­sur­ance com­pan­ies are get­ting in­ac­cur­ate in­form­a­tion about the ap­plic­ants who can get through Health­Care.gov ““ for ex­ample, de­pend­ents com­ing though as mul­tiple spouses.

“We have un­covered a num­ber of those scen­ari­os — not sig­ni­fic­ant, but a num­ber of them “¦ Most of them are isol­ated, not across the board for all in­surers,” Camp­bell said.

She said CGI is flag­ging the er­rors as they arise and work­ing to sort out the prob­lem.

Up­date (12:07 p.m.): Rep. Steve Scal­ise, R-Louisi­ana, says that, to prove a point about the di­fi­cult of nav­ig­at­ing Health­Care.gov, he went T.V. shop­ping on Amazon dur­ing the hear­ing. He says he pretty eas­ily found thou­sands of op­tions. Health­Care.gov, not so easy.

—————

Up­date (11:50 a.m.): House Over­sight and Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee Chair­man Dar­rell Issa an­nounced Tues­day he would in­vest­ig­ate why CGI was in­struc­ted at the last minute to dis­able the an­onym­ous shop­ping fea­ture and re­quire con­sumers to cre­ate pro­files be­fore view­ing health in­sur­ance plan prices.

Rep. G.K. But­ter­field, D-North Car­o­lina, read por­tions of Issa’s let­ter, and told Camp­bell thatIssa said he has mount­ing evid­ence that there were White House polit­ic­al con­sid­er­a­tions in­volved in the de­cision.

Issa’s of­fice con­firmed Thursday they were briefed last week by CGI of­fi­cials. Camp­bell cast doubt on Issa’s let­ter.

“I don’t be­lieve that mem­bers of CGI ac­tu­ally made those state­ments dir­ectly in that man­ner,” Camp­bell said. “I think they may have been taken out of con­text but I’d have to get back to you on that and no the White House has not giv­en us dir­ect in­struc­tions.”

The last-minute change re­quired test­ing, Slavitt said, and QSSI in­formed CMS.

“We in­formed CMS that more test­ing was ne­ces­sary, we in­formed CMS of the pieces of the sys­tem that had is­sues that we had tested,” Slavitt said.

——————

Up­ate (11:46 a.m.): CGI Fed­er­al built the bulk of Health­Care.gov, which has been plagued by tech­nic­al prob­lems since its launch on Oct. 1. CGI’s Cheryl Camp­bell con­firmed that the sys­tem crashed dur­ing a test that sim­u­lated only a few hun­dred people try­ing to log in.

“There was an end-to-end test that oc­curred, and the sys­tem did crash with about that num­ber,” she said.

But CGI said the prob­lems with Health­Care.gov aren’t its fault. When CGI tested its piece of the site in­de­pend­ently, it worked fine, Camp­bell said. Only dur­ing “end-to-end test­ing” were prob­lems dis­covered.

—————-

Up­date (11:32 a.m.): Rep. Mike Ro­gers, R-Michigan., pushed CGI’s Cheryl Camp­bell on pos­sible se­cur­ity prob­lems with Health­Care.gov:

“You don’t need to have willy-nilly code. You can have the best code in the world. Every cy­ber-se­cur­ity ex­pert un­der­stands that when you in­tro­duce new code, it has oth­er im­plic­a­tions on a broad­er sys­tem. Even bey­ond your bor­ders. That’s what we are wor­ried—we are not wor­ried you are put­ting bad code in. We are wor­ried you may ac­ci­dent­ally, as we know with the func­tion­al­ity of your sys­tem doesn’t work, it would be only lo­gic­al to con­clude if the func­tion­al­ity of the sys­tem doesn’t work when it all came to­geth­er, you can­not com­pose se­cur­ity.”

————-

Up­date (10:58 a.m.): This ex­change touches on the theme of this whole hear­ing. That each con­tract­or stands by their work, and the fail­ure is in the ag­greg­ate.

Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn.: Why doesn’t Health­Care.gov work prop­erly?

CGI’s Cheryl Camp­bell: Sir, if there is with a sil­ver bul­let to an­swer — if there was a sil­ver bul­let to an­swer that ques­tion, I would. It is not just a com­pon­ent of what CGI is re­spons­ible for. It’s the end-to-end as­pect that is chal­lenged. There’s com­pon­ents across the en­tire sys­tem — across the eco­sys­tem that can have an im­pact.

Rep. Pitts: Mr. Slavitt?

Andy Slavitt, Group Ex­ec­ut­ive Vice-Pres­id­ent at Optum: We ab­so­lutely take ac­count­ab­il­ity for those first days when our tool was part of the is­sue in terms of be­ing able to handle all of the un­ex­pec­ted volume. And we ab­so­lutely will take ac­count­ab­il­ity for help­ing in any way we can to help this pro­ject go for­ward. For­tu­nately today, the data ser­vices hub and the ei­dm tool are per­form­ing well.

—————————

Chair­man Fred Up­ton: “Did any­one re­com­mend delay­ing the launch?” He then asked for raised hands from the wit­nesses. None ap­peared.

———————-

CGI’s Cheryl Camp­bell: “Our por­tion of the sys­tem is what we test­i­fied was ready to go live. But it was not our de­cision to go live. It was CMS’ (The Cen­ter for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices) de­cision to go live.”

———————-

Rep. Henry Wax­man, D-Cal­if.: Can you ex­plain that these prob­lems will be fixed in time.

Camp­bell: Be­cause as I said, we’re see­ing im­prove­ments day over day. We’re con­tinu­ing to run quer­ies against our data­base. We’re run­ning — re­view­ing sys­tem logs. We’re fine tun­ing our serv­ers. We are ana­lyz­ing the codes for an­om­alies. Every day we’re find­ing chal­lenges in the sys­tem and mak­ing those cor­rec­tions. As you would with any sys­tem that will go live. When a sys­tem goes in­to pro­duc­tion, these are the things you would typ­ic­ally find after pro­duc­tion. Maybe not to the level of de­tail that’s happened in this ex­per­i­ence, but when a sys­tem goes live, these are the things you con­tin­ue to do, you con­tin­ue to provide sys­tem builds and put per­form­ance tun­ing to the ap­plic­a­tion to make sure it con­tin­ues to im­prove time over time.

———————-

Rep. Mar­sha Black­burn, R-Tenn: Do you main­tain er­ror logs?

All: Yes.

Black­burn: Can you sub­mit them?

Camp­bell: “I will have to con­fer with CMS as to what doc­u­ments we can and can­not provide.”

Black­burn: “It would be in­ter­est­ing to see those er­ror logs be­cause we’d be able to see how many people are ac­tu­ally ac­cess­ing these sys­tems “¦ and see where the se­cur­ity flaws might be.”

No one else offered an an­swer be­fore Black­burn’s time ex­pired.

———————-

Pal­lone force­fully mocked the hear­ing, prompt­ing Up­ton to ask him to yield. Pal­lone re­fused and rose his voice: “No I will not yield to this mon­key court or whatever it is.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4526) }}

A bit of a shout­ing match en­sued be­fore Pal­lone ad­ded: “Why are we go­ing down this path? Be­cause you are try­ing to scare people so they don’t ap­ply so the Af­ford­able Care Act gets delayed or re­pealed.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×