Report: MNSure Needs Software, Call Center Overhaul

A new report has criticized the utility of Minnesota's health insurance exchange, saying it will fall short of enrollment goals and satisfying consumers trying to purchase coverage.

The MNSure exchange was built with $155 million in federal funds dispersed under the Affordable Care Act. It is one of 16 exchanges operated at the state level.

However, the MNSure site has been filled with glitches. The site has processed only about 28,000 applications – far short of the 70,000 projected by the end of open enrollment this spring. MNSure's executive director, April Todd-Malmov, resigned under fire late last year. Scott Leitz was named interim director while a permanent replacement is found.

The report by Optum Health, which was undertaken at no charge to MNSure, was riddled with bureaucratese. It also strongly suggested that Optum, an affiliated company of Minnesota-based health insurance giant UnitedHealth, be retained to assist in improving the MNSure exchange website and call center.

But blunt assessments also occasionally peeked through: “current program management structure and process is nonexistent, and management/leadership/decision making is occurring via crisis mode,” read a part of the report.

Optum identified some 210 defects in the site's software – including 25 major errors in the IBM suite used to determine Medicaid eligibility and tax credits – and noted that potential enrollees were waiting 50 minutes on average to have their phone calls answered.

The report recommended hiring about an additional full-time 100 call center employees to reduce the waiting times. And, it suggested revamping the entire exchange website.

However, the report also acknowledged that the latter was not possible at the current time. “The only option available to complete the 2014 enrollment period through the first quarter is to continue utilizing the existing system,” it read.

The report suggested two options for the website revamp: Rebuild the entire system while keeping the current architecture in place, or make ongoing changes to the existing system. The second option would likely take longer – as long as two years – while both would require additional spending. The report did not furnish any cost estimates.

The report was presented to the MNSure board earlier this week. It has yet to act on the recommendations.