Don McCubbrey's Blog

CMBS Follow-up on January 19

April Washington's had a follow-up article on January 19 to her January 18 piece on the CBMS hearings (see previous post) entitled "Benefits Glitches Blasted". Colorado legislators, justifiably critical of the $223 million welfare-benefits computer's problems which went live on September 1, 2004, "blasted state officials Thursday for launching the computer two years ago when they knew it had flaws".  As one example, the article stated that "Needy people are getting, in some cases, 10-page notices daily telling them that they have been overpaid by $900 and that their next month's food stamps payment will be cut by at least 10 percent, according to a letter handed to lawmakers by Linda Olson, an attorney with Colorado Legal Services."  There's more in the article.

Looking at the bright side, Ron Houston, a spokesman for the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) was quoted as saying "Once you build a system, you never walk away from it," "It needs maintenance, just like a car."  The only problem is that CBMS was never really built, was it?  Kind of like buying a car that was never completely assembled; never test-driven and missing a few parts here and there.  An even brighter perspective was offered by Alden Schoctner, regional director of government relations for EDS, the outside contractor for CBMS, whom the article quoted as saying  "the state will need to spend millions more to get CBMS to work as it was envisioned."  Wonder who gets those millions more.  The article, which is worth reading in its entirety, didn't say.   

BTW, there are a couple of good comments from readers on CBMS on my August 27 2006 Blog post.  Just scroll on down.

CBMS as of January 18 2007

Recall that the CBMS (Colorado Benefits Management Systems) was converted before it was ready for prime time on September 1, 2004 and has been a mess ever since.  Now that there is a new legislature in Colorado, the spotlight is finally being focused on what went wrong and why, and how this thing is going to get fixed.  April Washington's article in the January 18 edition of the Rocky Mountain News, "Hearing eyes benefits woes" reports on hearings conducted by a legislative committee.  Take a look.  Here are some excerpts: 

"Officials in some of Colorado's largest counties say that former Gov. Bill Owens' administration was in "a defiant state of denial" regarding problems with the state's welfare computer system, and that it could leave counties on the hook for millions of dollars in benefits overpayments.

"The system is ineffective, and it's not working. It's as simple as that," Gilpin County Commissioner Jeanne Nicholson said. "The state has stayed in a defiant state of denial."

Counties worry that they'll have to reimburse the federal government millions of dollars in overpayments to the needy, and some lawmakers are so concerned they called a hearing on the matter today.

The $223-million system was designed to replace the 25-year-old Legacy system and streamline food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families.

But it has denied benefits to thousands of qualified clients, and has been maddeningly slow, hard to operate and labor-intensive".

And later:

"More than two years after its rollout, the Colorado Benefits Management System still is causing major headaches, say counties. Among them:

• It's generating over 11,000 notices of overpayments to clients every month.

• Training for county human services workers has been inadequate.

• The time needed to enter a case into the system has doubled to more than an hour.

• Workers must plow through an excessive number of error-prone, complex screens and decision tables to determine a client's eligibility. To work around the faulty system, they must thumb through seven thick manuals that contain more than 6,000 guidelines and procedures.

Counties have been forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to hire additional workers. The state has kicked in more than $9 million.

Owens did not respond to a request for comment.

Dan Hopkins, a former Owens spokesman, said he will not get into "the business of commenting every time someone brings up Owens, positively or negatively."

"To do so only invites a continuing and unproductive dialog," he said".

Right.  Let's not talk about it.  Why talk about unpleasant topics?