...... Jeff Jinnett, a lawyer who specializes in technology issues, said several states, including Georgia, Virginia and Hawaii, had passed laws to shield themselves against lawsuits that might be filed if their computers fail. Under such laws, he said, if a person does not receive a benefit check and therefore cannot buy medicine needed to treat a severe illness, the person might be barred from suing the state for damages.
States are attacking the year 2000 problem in different ways and vary greatly in their efforts to measure progress.
Judi Worsham, data processing manager for the Medicaid program in Oklahoma, keeps track of her work with great precision. "As of Nov. 5," she said, "we have completed 55.07 percent of the work to be done by June 30, 1999, and we have used 56.51 percent of the days available since we started on Jan. 1 of this year."
Health and welfare officials in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut said they had been renovating their computers for several years and foresaw no major problems. "We are about 95 percent ready for the year 2000," said Joyce Thomas, commissioner of social services in Connecticut.
But Sarah Mingledorff, deputy commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency, said: "Our existing computer system is not being touched. We won't upgrade it. We'll put in a new one on Oct. 1, 1999." Federal officials said that was a high-risk strategy because information technology projects were rarely completed on time and often required extensive testing to eliminate defects.
A report prepared for Gov. David Beasley of South Carolina says that "a significant number of large computer systems will experience year 2000-related failures" despite the best efforts of state employees.
"Payments to welfare recipients could be severely delayed because compensation systems either halt or produce checks so erroneous that the system must be shut down and checks processed manually," the report says.
California has upgraded its Medicaid computers, but told the General Accounting Office that it could not provide statewide data on the renovation of computers used to establish eligibility for welfare and food stamps because the computer systems varied from county to county.
Many governors, including George Pataki of New York, have formally recognized the year 2000 problem as a priority.
But John Koskinen, a White House official who supervises preparations for the year 2000, said, "We are concerned about some states where it's not a priority of the governor and it's viewed as merely an information technology problem, off on the side." Koskinen is chairman of President Clinton's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, an interagency group formed in February.
Governors may ultimately be held accountable if benefits are not paid on time. John Thomas Flynn, the chief information officer of California, said: "If social services are disrupted, you'll have more than computer problems. You could have civil disturbances. That's why this issue is a high priority for us."
Janice Lilja, acting deputy administrator of the federal Food and Nutrition Service, said the government had asked the top welfare officials in each state to certify, in writing, that they had fixed their food stamp computers to cope with the year 2000, or that they had some alternative means of delivering benefits.
Welfare agencies could issue checks by hand for a few weeks, as they sometimes do after an earthquake or a hurricane. State and local officials could simply assume that everyone on the rolls of a particular program in December 1999 was entitled to assistance in January 2000. Or the federal government could advance the necessary money to the states for a few months, without receiving the data normally required to justify such payments. Likewise, a state having difficulties could seek help from other states with extra computer capacity, or could hire private companies to write checks and perform other tasks normally done by government agencies.
Even a state that fixes its own computers may have problems if its repairs are not compatible with those made by the federal government or by counties and cities in the state. In addition, state officials must deal with thousands of providers and vendors of services, who may or may not have made the necessary computer changes.
A state Medicaid program, for example, receives tens of thousands of electronic claims from doctors, dentists, hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and home health agencies. If such health care providers do not fix their computers to cope with the year 2000, their Medicaid payments may be delayed.
Joel Schnedler, deputy director of computer operations for the Missouri Medicaid program, said there would be no problem paying hospitals and chain drug stores that file large numbers of Medicaid claims. But he said he worried about doctors and dentists who filed just a few claims a month. State employees may have to do some "manual manipulation" of the data before paying such claims, he said.
Koskinen, the White House official supervising preparations for the year 2000, said, "Six or eight states have difficulty even identifying who operates these electronic data exchanges," so they are in no position to test the arrangements.
Jeff Jinnett, a lawyer who specializes in technology issues, said several states, including Georgia, Virginia and Hawaii, had passed laws to shield themselves against lawsuits that might be filed if their computers fail. Under such laws, he said, if a person does not receive a benefit check and therefore cannot buy medicine needed to treat a severe illness, the person might be barred from suing the state for damages.
States are attacking the year 2000 problem in different ways and vary greatly in their efforts to measure progress.
Judi Worsham, data processing manager for the Medicaid program in Oklahoma, keeps track of her work with great precision. "As of Nov. 5," she said, "we have completed 55.07 percent of the work to be done by June 30, 1999, and we have used 56.51 percent of the days available since we started on Jan. 1 of this year."
Health and welfare officials in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut said they had been renovating their computers for several years and foresaw no major problems. "We are about 95 percent ready for the year 2000," said Joyce Thomas, commissioner of social services in Connecticut.
But Sarah Mingledorff, deputy commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency, said: "Our existing computer system is not being touched. We won't upgrade it. We'll put in a new one on Oct. 1, 1999." Federal officials said that was a high-risk strategy because information technology projects were rarely completed on time and often required extens |
