Minnesota Plans To Spend Another $12.5 Million To Fix Its Glitch Filled ObamaCare Exchange, Total Cost Now Exceeds $150 Million

weaselzippers;

Minnesota Plans To Spend Another $12.5 Million To Fix Its Glitch Filled ObamaCare Exchange, Total Cost Now Exceeds $150 Million

Paid for with federal taxpayer dollars.

ST. PAUL – MNsure wants to spend an additional $12.5 million this year to continue repairs to its website and call center, officials said Wednesday, as they unveiled plans for a balanced budget in 2015.

During a meeting Wednesday in St. Paul, the MNsure board approved a $39.8 million budget for next year that will be balanced if the federal government lets MNsure change the timing for when it can spend $5 million in grants.

Federal approval is likely, said Scott Leitz, interim chief executive officer at MNsure, because the state is seeking flexibility – not more money. But if federal officials object, MNsure will make spending cuts so it doesn’t need more funds from the Legislature, Leitz said.

Meanwhile, MNsure also is seeking federal approval to change its plans for spending grant funds this year, which would allow an additional $10 million for information technology (IT) and $2.5 million for better customer service operations. [...]

Low commercial enrollment creates a budget problem for MNsure, because starting next year it must fund operations by withholding up to 3.5 percent of premiums sold. Operations this year are being funded by federal grants – Minnesota has received about $150 million from the federal government to create the MNsure exchange.

Thank You PrairieBizMag, WZ, and Zip.

OK: Once more, for the record: Our Banner promises Psychiatry, so why all the Government FUBARS?

BECAUSE, These Govt. FUBARS are what Govt. Healthcare is, just like Psychiatry.

Without Govt. Paying for it, Psychiatry would virtually cease to exist.

Court: Online Patient Reviews Are Protected Speech

Fierce Healthcare has;
Court: Online Patient Reviews Are Protected Speech

Minnesota Supreme Court says claims that a doctor is a 'real tool' cannot be proven true or false

January 31, 2013 | By Alicia Caramenico

Amid doctors' wariness about online review sites, the Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday ruled that an online patient review was not defamatory, the Associated Press reported.

The decision ends a four-year legal battle that stemmed from a defamation lawsuit by neurologist David McKee. Following the hospitalization of Dennis Laurion's father at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth, Laurion wrote reviews on several sites, with one claiming a nurse called the doctor "a real tool," the Star Tribune article.

The high court dismissed the defamation lawsuit and reversed an Appeals Court ruling that the statements harmed McKee's reputation and could be proven as false. Moreover, according to the state Supreme Court, it doesn't matter if the unnamed nurse really exists, the AP noted.


"Referring to someone as 'a real tool' falls into the category of pure opinion because the term 'real tool' cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact, and it cannot be proven true or false," the opinion states.

The situation also highlights that defamation lawsuits are not without cost--to the providers and the patients involved.
McKee has spent at least $50,000 in legal fees, as well as $11,000 to clear his reputation after the incident prompted hundreds of negative online reviews. For Laurion, litigation costs have totaled more than two years' income, noted the Star Tribune.

"The financial costs are significant, but money is money, and five years from now, I won't notice the money I spent on this," McKee told the newspaper. "It's been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress."

Providers can take several steps to control their online reputation, such as training staff to impress and keeping listings up to date and accurate. To avoid defamation lawsuits, experts recommend providers first try to resolve the patient's complaint, if a name is provided, and encourage them to remove or amend their review, FiercePracticeManagement previously reported.

For more:
- read the AP article
- here's the Star Tribune article
Related Articles:
Docs wary of online review sites
Doc-rating websites reflect too few views
The case for embracing online reviews
Poor systems, not docs, drive bad online review

Thank You Fierce Healthcare and Ms Caramenico


Well now, at least for Minnesotans:

Next step is getting the U.S. Supreme Court to Rule it a blanket provision covering all 50 States.

Then just sit back and watch those Psychiatric Ideations draw in their lying through Omission/Therapeutic Privilege lobotomy peddlings.

Watch the threatening mail from Law Firms start flying into patients e-mail boxes.

And watch those patients tell those threatening letters All About Slander and Defamation, . . . .

Human Rights or Civil Rights? US 18C13 Sec 241 & 242