I wouldn’t expect much in a raise…we are not getting new business quickly enough with our dated technology and antiquated platforms. No one still understands our name change. Added that the board to keep “Executive” talent will keep most of the profit at the Executive and board level…only the true workers will be effected.
17 replies (most recent on top)
Elevance is run by insecure people who created a culture that fans the flames of that insecurity.
Insecure people compete because they're constantly trying to prove value.
Secure people collaborate because they know their own value alone, and when working in a team.
AI has already been sold when we had Rajeev, ex Google, ex Apple, ex Etc. They couldn’t pull it off, so I suspect investors have heard a lot of this before with little results.
Has anyone noticed the stock has been going down since the TO took over the company? Is it a coincidence or can we just not convince people to invest in our latest transformation?
For the longest time I thought that emoji was chocolate soft serve ice cream.
Health insurance companies are financial organizations who happen to use health care as a venue to generate funds. They su-k up a bunch of money and make investments to make big returns and provide huge salaries to people – while making it difficult for people to get care they need, and making it difficult for providers to get paid for their work.
Real goal is not “healthcare”, which is why the processes look so 💩
Every system at Evilance is half baked. They cut the funds before it's done and go live anyway. Over and over. It's ridiculous.
@2kfw+1vzUrdnl - This is what happens when anyone and everyone who know anything are RIF'd. All knowledge is shoved out the door. In a way, Hellevance are the aiti-BORG.
Speaking from the perspective of one of the businesses that Carelon gobbled up, Elevance is the absolute worst "client" we have to deal with. And it's not even close. Their data is terrible. It is impossible to get anything corrected on their side. No one ever knows an answer, they always need to talk to someone else. And half the time the people are overly rude and impossible to work with.
And these are the people telling US how we need to run IT. Yeah, just stay in your own lane. You bought us for a reason and it wasn't to make our IT look like yours.
Add to that the expectation of reduced capacity due to layoffs and that all of us need to offshore to CGS so that we can boost their profits. Most are nice people who are technically OK but they know nothing about the business.
Like George Clooney, RATtlesnake is steering us directly into The Perfect Storm.
- The only reason the system stays afloat is through inflated billing practices. The so-called "flywheel" is actually a parasitic process we've conveniently renamed to keep health benefits indebted to carelon.
- IT teams demand a project ID just to provide an estimate—essentially charging you to consider the work. How is this even considered best practice?
- If defects arise, they're brushed off as the business's fault for giving bad input and it takes months to fight over root cause which,
sorry, is often technical.
3a.Fixing them? Not an IT problem. The feature fails, but it's marked as complete in Jira, and they still get paid. And if business wants an actual fix, business has to come up with money.
3b. Can we talk about how ridiculous it is that IT gets zero Lights On funding so even if they want to fix something, they can't because who would they bill to? Themselves? Ha.
- Skill gaps become glaringly obvious during PI planning, stretching a single enabler sprint into an entire PI. The business foots the bill for the delay not IT who can't retain top talent but neither can the business so maybe that's fair.
4a. Funding gets cut mid PI so half developed features are in every environment and we ignore how hard that is to 1. Clean up later (tech debt) 2. Train users that only certain features exist in certain places/markets
4b. We don't care about established teams. We assume we can shuffle IT team members around and/or RIF them and still get the same output from the remaining
- Consumer research gets done, but the insights are ignored due to cost. Why bother giving insights? Decisions are made by people disconnected from the consumer experience anyway.
- Initial estimates are created, then funding is slashed until nothing substantial is deliverable. Yet, the business remains accountable for outdated savings projections from four business case revisions ago.
- There’s no way to track value or cost effectively at the feature level in Jira. Without data, failed features are indistinguishable from successful ones, and decisions remain blind.
- Data and integrations are a mess because no one prioritizes a single source of truth—probably because there isn’t one.
- Competing priorities: IT commits to delivering features. The business asks for quality. IT delivers the COUNT, not the value, and requests more money to fix the fallout.
9a. IT and business operate like separate entities with no effective mediator to align goals. End users—whether members, providers, or employees—aren't a priority to save budgets. Intermediary business units have no clout to ask the teams to do better because of VP and Chief pi----g matches across the enterprise.
- Business units avoid collaboration due to conflicting incentives. Everyone is burnt out, but fear of job security keeps teams from addressing the dysfunction. Offers of help are met with suspicion, perpetuating stagnation.
10a. We have long established IT teams and agile release trains that either routinely inflate that they met their PI objectives for the VP to save face OR consistently deliver half of what is promised and no one actually does anything differently next PI. But please never, ever expect anyone in IT to admit to any kind of failure. I think their VPs gets drawn and quartered or at least, that's what the VPs want you to think.
And here we are. Looks like we've uncovered another massive organizational and leadership failure that will continue to be laid at the feet of regular employees, members and providers. What a time to be alive!
- The same issues are shouted across teams, but leadership inertia keeps everything static. If bold cost cuts are needed, start with leadership itself. Oh, but how will they afford the hamptons?
@1uki+1vzUrdnl - Well stated. It's a classic circlej--k
@1uki+1vzUrdnl not just tech debt. Plenty of talent here that could solve it they've just stopped trying because of the head ba----g. It's the entire feckin overhead. Tons of people who have no benefit to the end product or consumer have to have their say and they need to justify their position so here we are. A simple app requires 48 tickets, 56 justifications, and 68 escalations. Along the way people who offer no benefit whatsoever solve process problems and get the attaboy's when they were complete overhead in the first place. Their leaders won't help with change because they know how irrelevant they are to Elevance's mission. I think we're only 2 steps away from the extraneous requirements completing a full circle with tickets just moving around and nothing actually getting done. AI will be able to submit and resolve those tickets in infinite circles so we won't actually need any IT at that point.
Lot of the engineers under Rat's org is there because they knew someone. There are several incompetent engineers who needs extra cushion in the timeline to get anything done. There are very few superstars in IT.
A simple solution requires 10+ teams to be involved. Price will always be high until someone addresses the tech debt. There have been opportunities, but a mistake will cost you dearly so teams won’t take the risk.
Elevance IT must be required to increase each quote by a factor of ten. They often assert that a project will cost between $3 million and $5 million, whereas any normal company would deliver for under $300K. The costs, bloat and inefficiencies prevent any progress or modernization efforts. NASA's $600 hammer pales in comparison to the prices quoted by Rat's organization. The smaller firms within Carelon used to be much better, but their operations are now constrained by the overarching and overreaching parent organization so they are getting crazy too.
Its shocking how bad the tech is here. Even more shocking some of the folks running it.
If you are still using Cobol, you are wrong. The insurance industry was widely criticized after Y2K for not doing what many other companies did and dump their aging systems. Due to the drop in demand, many colleges dropped their Cobol programs. With every passing day, support will continue to lag and the expense to migrate to a new distributed system will increase.
What is worse and funny at the same time is that Carelon Global Solutions is supposed to be the future, the great outsourcing of home jobs.
In IT, there have been multiple cases where CGS candidates were offered jobs, but those that interviewed turned down the jobs because our technology is dated and antiquated. Those that interviewed felt it wouldn't be good for their careers to work on our technology. Can't make this stuff up. Unbelievable...