I think no one has talked about it because (a) it was over-shadowed by the problems with the federal site, and (b) people in the other 49 states wouldn't have had experience with it.

I'm curious about context for the reported numbers. Absolute numbers like 717,000 or 343,000 don't mean much without context. i.e. is that about what they had expected? more? less?

http://nyshealthfoundation.org/priority-areas/expanding-health-care-coverage

Medicaid enrollment numbers can't be assumed to be "new" enrollees, exactly. There is a high flux of Medicaid covered persons in all states at all times.

I'm surprised by how low these numbers are. Mystified, really. Because NY already had group rating, so there shouldn't have been a premium downside for them (which is what is mostly preventing total insured populations from rising in other states). I kind of doubt these numbers - let's wait for the final total.

re: "I'm surprised by how low these numbers are. Mystified, really...I kind of doubt these numbers - let's wait for the final total."

Having attempted to buy insurance on the NY exchange, I'm not surprised that the number is low. The site is just terrible. I ultimately gave up.

Luckily, I found another route... I ended up purchasing a policy directly from the company who my old policy was with. It's not possible to get any subsidy that way, but I don't think I would have qualified for one anyway.

(I couldn't stick with my old policy, it was one of the ones that was discontinued because of ACA. I actually do like my new policy better, even though it's double the price.)

it means that 717,000 people like me now have insurance and a hope of receiving medical care with out having to go into debt. And to me that is far more important then if they reached some pre-set goal.

I agree the site is very difficult to navigate, but then that is why they trained Navigators to be available. I found a list for my area (at the NYS site) called one, had an appointment in two days (my schedule issue) and showed up with requested paper work. She was able to do in 30 minutes what I never could have done on my own. Seriously, in 30 minutes, she ran my numbers, showed me my tax credits, ran the plans with me and had me singed up. She even made follow up calls after to me to let me know when my numbers where approved and after I should have heard from my insurance companies.

Other then the fact it is health insurance and not health care, my interaction with the ACA has been a net positive for me. My big complaint is that whatever advertising was done promoting local Navigators and Portals, was not very extensive. I heard on NPR out of Albany one day, a local health provider network was set up as navigators . They mentioned it in a story they were doing about the ACA and I recognized the name they mentioned as the financial side of our local health care network. That was the only time I heard or read about navigators in my area.

I hope if you need it, you have a positive experience with the ACA.

I'm glad you got what you need! But you also are demonstrating the problem I was talking about. Here you are, someone who (being on DU) is presumably at least somewhat computer literate, and you could not find a way to buy insurance from the web site, you needed to make an in-person appointment. That's supposed to be, by far, the exception and not the rule. There were not nearly enough "Navigators" to sign up the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people one-by-one in person, even assuming the people could all manage to get to the Navigator's offices during working hours. The Navigators were supposed to be there primarily for people who weren't comfortable using computers. The majority of us were supposed to self-enroll online. You and I could not.

I did call a Navigator. He said they were overwhelmed, and so booked up that he could not get me an appointment until some time after the deadline, but there might have been someone available sooner at another office, he was going to have someone call me back. I never got the return call.

So yeah, I would not be at all surprised if enrollment is way below what they had hoped or projected. The site is just atrocious. Not just confusing and poorly laid out, but also functionally messed up (including really rookie mistakes, like links that don't take you anywhere). I'm sure it worked for some people, but in my case, whatever I did, I must have answered the questions a certain way or navigated the pages in some way order they did not anticipate or did not test for. I ultimately got to a page that would not let me proceed any further, and I couldn't figure out what it was it wanted me to do. I tried multiple times, over months, figuring that surely they would fix the issue... but no.

let the insurance industry write the NYS insurance program. There is not ONE plan where you can go out of network.

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/out-network-coverage-new-york-we-left-it-insurers

I was with my daughter when she signed up - it was very easy for her.

From the first week it was online (when I was unable to get in at all because of the high demand on the server), to just a few weeks ago, I tried numerous times. The problems weren't always the same, but I was never able to get through it.

I'm sure that it can work for people, if they do things exactly as the programmer expected. We would certainly know if zero people had been able to enroll online. Even when the federal site was a mess, *some* people were able to use it. And I've heard other success stories besides yours, as well as other frustrations.

I don't know what percentage of people had problems, but that's why I'm curious about whether the site did or did not approach having the number of sign-ups as expected. If it fell far short, that could be a contributing factor.

I have another daughter who is in Massachusetts where their system is so completely not working now that they have told people that they can't process written applications that were submitted yet - and gave temporary Mass Health cards. (Caveat - this is all second hand - my daughter is extremely frustrated by it and often mentioned how she loved being on the British National health while doing a master's at the University of London.)

I was with the NY daughter when she successfully got on a plan - and know that she now has insurance. It might be because she qualified for Medicaid and that part is working. Her sister is making slightly too much.

I know the Vermont program - at least initially had problems because I heard the Governor asked questions about them.

It is frustrating that so many of the programs - including one done by supportive states have been so badly created. I also wonder why the government - if they were going to outsource them - did not go to really big software/technology companies.

I understand that the system needed IS complicated and needs to pull in a lot of information and process it correctly - for all circumstances. At worst, it should have been designed so the hopefully very few too complicated were identified and sent to experts to resolve possibly after they get more information from the person - telling the person that was happening and when (and how) they would receive the information when resolved. It is mind boggling that the process when it hits a brick wall just tells YOU to try again or find help on your own.

That they did not design in a process for applications that were unsuccessful may also mean that they lost the easiest way to have information on what the problems were and what was needed to fix them. From the problem encountered, they likely COULD have used analysis to cluster similar problems and send them to the same team of experts. Obviously, as these experts encountered and solved different problems, developers should have worked with them to use their information to fix the specific problems.

But that's what you'd expect from the main stream media.