|
|
|
|
|
by ethbr0
1835 days ago
|
|
I worked in health care IT (insurance / provider side) during ACA's implementation. My takeaway is that Congress is technically ignorant of how ossified these backend systems are, but the enforcement agencies (e.g. CMS) are the grease between law and implementation. F.ex. ACA language and guidance being tweaked right up until the supposed "must be compliant by" date. Generally speaking, it works about as well as one might hope. All the stakeholders get together, hash out a reasonable schedule for actual implementation, and then everyone generally works towards that. It helps that the relationships are generally interdependent, and there's enough money sloshing through the system to fund change. So all parties generally do a fair job at converging on the requested changes, quicker than they'd like, but slower than the government would prefer. And then the few trailing insincere implementers start getting beat with fine sticks once the majority of their peers have successfully implemented. But agile, it ain't. |
|
Starting January 2023, insurance companies and plan providers need to publish similar data, so to your point that might be the interdependency required for compliance.
Obligatory these views are my own, not my company's.