Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

OCTOBER 1999 

OEI-05-98-00591 

Y2K Readiness of Managed Care 

Organizations as of July 1999 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Chicago Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of William C. Moran, 

Regional Inspector General and Natalie Coen, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Principal OEI 

staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Thomas Komaniecki, Project Leader Elise Stein, Program Specialist

Nora Leibowitz

Susan Otter

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Chicago Regional Office at (312) 353-4124. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To examine the current Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness of Medicare managed care 

organizations and provide follow-up information for the Health Care Financing 

Administration. 

BACKGROUND 

The Y2K problem stems from the way computers have traditionally stored dates through 

the use of an “implied century.” To save computer storage space, programmers used only 

two digits, rather than four, in year date fields. The Health Care Financing Administration 

(HCFA) has made remedying the Y2K problem its number one priority. 

Some of the key computer systems at risk among healthcare providers that could affect 

the 7 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care are: premium billing 

systems, medical information systems, member enrollment systems, member verification 

systems and provider payment systems. Failure of these systems to correctly process data 

could negatively impact access to care and service delivery. 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an initial survey on Medicare managed 

care organizations (MCOs) in January and February of 1999. The results of this survey 

can be found in a report entitled Y2K Readiness of Managed Care Organizations, OEI05-98-00590. The Congress and HCFA requested that we conduct a follow-up survey. 

The OIG also conducted surveys of various medical provider types. These results can be 

found in a report entitled Y2K Readiness of Medicare Providers, OEI-03-98-00250. The 

OIG also conducted follow-up surveys of these providers. The results of these surveys 

can be found in an OIG report entitled Y2K Readiness of Medicare Fee-for-Service 

Providers as of July 1999, OEI-03-98-00253. 

We received follow-up surveys from 161 MCO contracts in July and August of 1999. The 

data was self-reported by MCOs and was not verified. Not all MCOs were surveyed due 

to site visits by HCFA. The HCFA conducted 59 site visits representing 204 managed 

care plans. We have reviewed this data as a complement to the survey we conducted. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 1 OEI-05-98-00591 
FINDINGS 

Over four-fifths of managed care organizations report that their systems are Y2K 

compliant 

Overall, 85 percent of MCO respondents claim that they are currently Y2K ready. 

Approximately 9 percent of these MCOs have not yet completed testing their systems. An 

MCO is considered to have overall Y2K compliance if it reported that all applicable 

systems are Y2K ready. Ninety-four percent of MCOs report that vendor-supported 

products, such as hardware, telecommunications and embedded processors, are 

compliant. Almost all MCOs have established recommended infrastructures in preparation 

for Y2K testing but most have not contracted out for independent assessment of Y2K 

readiness. 

About one-half indicate that they are taking steps toward ensuring compliance 

with external partners 

Fifty-six percent of MCOs report receiving commitments from relevant data exchange 

partners to participate in end-to-end testing. Nine percent of MCOs felt such 

commitments were not applicable. Fifty percent of MCOs have tested exchanging data 

with their subcontractors’ systems, and 35 percent of MCOs have tested exchanging data 

with their medical providers’ systems. 

Approximately 80 percent report developing contingency plans; about 30 percent 

report testing their contingency plans 

Comparing the current survey to our previous study, we found an increase of 5 to 10 

percent of MCOs reporting that they have developed contingency plans related to specific 

computer systems. Currently, 83 percent of MCOs report developing a contingency 

strategy for their membership enrollment systems, and 79 percent of MCOs report 

developing a strategy for their premium billing systems. Seventy-three percent report 

developing a contingency plan for their medical information systems. As of July 1999, 28 

percent of MCOs report having tested contingency plans, compared to only 8 percent as 

of February 1999. 

The HCFA required MCOs to submit contingency plans for review. The contingency 

plans were reviewed for content and feasibility of implementation. Based on their analysis, 

HCFA determined that 33 percent of the contingency plans submitted as of August 1999 

required little or no modification, while 67 percent needed major or complete revision. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 2 OEI-05-98-00591 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We received comments from the Health Care Financing Administration. Their comments 

are included as Appendix B. We appreciate HCFA’s cooperation in developing our 

survey and sharing the results of their on-site Y2K reviews of managed care organizations. 

We commend HCFA’s continued focus on readiness in light of the results of their on-site 

visits, their review of contingency plans, and our survey results. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 3 OEI-05-98-00591 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 5

FINDINGS .......................................................... 10

Internal Y2K Compliance .............................................. 10

External Partners Testing .............................................. 11

Contingency Planning ................................................. 11

AGENCY COMMENTS ................................................ 13

APPENDIX

Survey Results ...................................................... 14

Agency Comments ................................................... 19

MCO Y2K Follow-up 4 OEI-05-98-00591 
INTRODUCTIO N 

Purpose 

To examine the current Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness of Medicare managed care 

organizations and provide follow-up information for the Health Care Financing 

Administration. 

Background 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a number of surveys examining the 

Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness of the health care industry. Among the areas of the health 

care industry surveyed by the OIG were Medicare managed care organizations (MCOs). 

The results of this survey can be found in a report entitled Y2K Readiness of Managed 

Care Organizations, OEI-05-98-00590. The Congress, along with the Health Care 

Financing Administration (HCFA), requested that we conduct a follow-up survey 

examining the current Y2K readiness of MCOs. 

The Y2K problem stems from the way computers have traditionally stored dates through 

the use of an “implied century.” To save memory and storage space, programmers have 

conventionally used only two digits, rather than four, in year date fields. When the 

calendar flips over to January 1, 2000, many computer systems will recognize the year 

“00" as 1900 and applications will either stop running or produce unpredictable results. 

Computer systems that are not “Y2K compliant” simply will not be able to recognize dates 

occurring after 1999 (e.g., “01" will be recognized as 1901 rather than 2001). These 

computer systems will not be able to process date and time sensitive data from one 

century into another or between centuries. 

Though perhaps not as complex or problematic as government program systems, MCOs 

are considered vulnerable to Y2K problems due to the myriad business systems they 

operate. These are systems that are crucial to the ongoing interface necessary to 

communicate with corporate and government payer sources and accounts-payable 

balances with physicians, hospitals, and other medical and non-medical providers and 

subcontractors. 

Some of the key computer systems at risk among healthcare providers that could affect 

the 7 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care are: premium billing 

systems, medical information systems, member enrollment systems, member verification 

systems and provider payment systems. Failure of these systems to correctly process data 

could negatively impact beneficiary access to care, service delivery and efficient Medicare 

reimbursement. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 5 OEI-05-98-00591 
Meeting the Y2K Challenge 

The HCFA has made the Y2K initiative its number one priority and is committed to 

making sure that its date-sensitive systems and those of its business partners are ready to 

verify eligibility, enrollment, coverage and payment. The HCFA defines Y2K compliant 

as: 

...information technology that accurately processes date/time data 

(including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and 

sequencing) from, into, and between the nineteenth, twentieth and 

twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000 and leap year 

calculations. Furthermore, Year 2000 compliant information 

technology, when used in combination with other information 

technology, shall accurately process date/time data if the other 

information technology properly exchanges date/time data with it. 

Meeting the Y2K challenge requires identifying, renovating and testing all computer and

information systems to assure the transition from a six-digit date (12/31/99) to an eightdigit date (12/31/1999) by January 1, 2000. Some examples of critical dates include:

< the date a beneficiary became eligible for Medicare, 

< the date a patient was admitted or discharged from a hospital, 

< the date a wheelchair rental began, and

< the date an enrollee entered a Medicare managed care plan. 

A trouble-free transition into the new millennium is key to meeting the needs of Medicare

beneficiaries and providers. At stake are efficient reimbursement and beneficiaries’ access

to, and the timeliness and quality of, health care. The HCFA advises its contracting

MCOs to review the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Assessment Guide as an aid

to becoming Y2K compliant. The HCFA advocates using the following five proactive

steps to identify and address potential impacts presented by the Year 2000 challenge: 

1. Awareness - inventory all hardware and software systems on the potential Y2K 

impact. 

2. Assessment - determine the Y2K readiness of these systems for operation beyond 

12/31/99. 

3. Renovation - update or replace systems and software programs as needed to 

ensure operations will be Y2K ready. 

4. Testing - test existing and newly purchased systems and software to verify they 

work. 

5. Contingency Planning - develop business contingency plans for operations 

beyond 12/31/99, just in case something goes wrong. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 6 OEI-05-98-00591 
Managed Care Organizations’ Millennium Compliance Responsibilities 

The HCFA has requested its managed care organizations make Y2K compliance a top 

priority. The HCFA has advised MCOs to assess the following business components: 

< Applications (including cross-business applications and all external interfaces). 

< Databases. 

< Computer Infrastructure (including hardware, system software, 

telecommunications, and date dependent functions such as passwords, accounts 

and software licenses). 

< Non-Information Technology Systems (including physical plant security, card entry 

systems, elevator systems, environmental control systems). 

In a Managed Care Millennium Compliance Letter dated September 17, 1998, HCFA 

delineates the following Year 2000 compliant responsibilities for its contracting MCOs: 

< Complying with the enrollment and payment data exchange processes requirements 

as outlined in HCFA’s Operational Policy Letter 98.068. (In essence, MCOs are 

to update all “date/time” fields in the record layouts of the Enrollment and 

Disenrollment Transaction and the Transaction Reply/Monthly Activity Report 

Data Format to record a four digit year.) 

< Clearly defining all internal and external systems and interfaces requiring 

compliance (membership systems, claims systems, medical record systems, 

pharmacy and lab systems, exchanges between delegated groups, etc.). 

< Performing a thorough risk assessment. 

< Identifying all involved parties and entities with whom data is exchanged and 

assuring that the defined requirements are clearly understood by these parties. 

< Ensuring that providers, suppliers, and beneficiaries are aware of the Y2K 

compliant issues and problems that may arise. 

< Communicating with trading partners with whom there is a data exchange to 

assure that they are taking the appropriate measures toward Y2K compliance. 

< Developing implementation plans and testing schedules. 

< Performing extensive testing. 

< Developing an extensive contingency plan. 

In addition to the above responsibilities, HCFA requires MCOs to: (1) “...certify that 

they understand HCFA’s Y2K compliant definition and have tested all of their data 

systems/interfaces to ensure Y2K compliance,” and (2) “...have a contingency plan in 

place in the event that internal organization or key external business partner systems fail.” 

The HCFA required MCOs to certify their Y2K compliance by April 15, 1999. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 7 OEI-05-98-00591 
Ongoing HCFA efforts 

In addition to having MCOs certify their Y2K compliance, HCFA is monitoring the 

contingency planning efforts of MCOs. The HCFA required all MCOs to submit their 

contingency plans to HCFA by July 15, 1999. The MCOs are also required to report on a 

monthly basis the status of validating their contingency plans. 

With the help of a technical support contractor, HCFA conducted 59 site reviews covering 

204 MCOs. From July through mid-September 1999, HCFA visited national managed 

care organizations and those organizations that have more than 50,000 enrolled Medicare 

beneficiaries. The HCFA also included a number of small plans as part of its site reviews. 

The site visits were conducted to evaluate the completeness of the planned Y2K 

preparations, associated schedules, quality control efforts, configuration management 

disciplines, renovations and contingency planning that pertain to the MCOs. 

Other Office of Inspector General Work 

The Office of Inspector General has also conducted surveys of hospitals, nursing homes, 

home health agencies, durable medical equipment suppliers and physicians to examine the 

Y2K readiness of these providers. The results of these surveys can be found in an OIG 

report entitled Y2K Readiness of Medicare Providers, OEI-03-98-00250. The OIG also 

conducted follow-up surveys of these providers. The results of these surveys can be 

found in an OIG report entitled Y2K Readiness of Medicare Fee-for-Service Providers as 

of July 1999, OEI-03-98-00253. 

METHODOLOGY 

The purpose of this inspection was to gather information from managed care organizations 

regarding their Y2K readiness. We developed our survey instrument in cooperation with 

the Health Care Financing Administration and timed our survey to coincide with HCFA’s 

site visits. Based on discussions with HCFA, we did not survey those MCOs scheduled 

for a site review by HCFA. 

The surveys were sent by overnight mail to the MCOs on June 28, 1999. We sent a 

postcard to the MCOs reminding them of our survey on July 12, 1999. Our deadline for 

returning the surveys was July 23, 1999. We contacted those MCOs that did not respond 

initially to our survey. We included surveys from all MCOs that responded before the end 

of the first week in August. 

We received a list of managed care contract numbers from HCFA. In addition, HCFA 

provided a list of MCOs scheduled for site review. We did not survey those MCOs 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 8 OEI-05-98-00591 
scheduled for a HCFA site review. After removing these MCOs, our list contained 235 MCOs. 

Nine contracts did not have sufficient information to be delivered through overnight mail. 

An additional 17 MCOs provided us with information that they were not renewing their 

Medicare contract for calender year 2000. We did not require these MCOs to respond to 

our survey. An additional 60 MCOs informed us that their plans were scheduled for a site 

visit by HCFA and therefore should not have received the survey. This left us expecting 

responses from 149 MCOs. 

We received responses from 161 MCOs. We received 144 surveys from the group of 149 

MCOs from whom we were expecting responses, a 97 percent response rate for this 

group. In addition, we received survey responses from 17 valid MCO contracts that were 

not on the original list provided by HCFA. In some cases, the responses were from MCOs 

with multiple contracts of which some were on the original list. In other cases, MCOs 

sent us survey responses based on information provided by the American Association of 

Health Plans through their web site which featured a copy of our survey. Using 

information from our previous MCO survey, we determined that 88 additional MCOs 

potentially should have been included in our June 28, 1999 mailing. The 88 additional 

MCOs, along with the 149 original expected responses, constitute the total population of 

MCOs not subject to HCFA site visits. Our study reflects the responses of 68 percent of 

these MCOs. 

We asked the MCOs whether they had conducted tests of their systems for Year 2000 

readiness. We allowed respondents to use their own definitions for testing based on 

industry standards. 

We have included, as Appendix A, a copy of the questionnaire that we used along with the 

overall survey results. 

Scope 

The data analyzed in this report was furnished by MCOs and was not verified for 

accuracy. The survey did not measure the quality of MCOs’ testing or contingency plan 

development. This data represents only those MCOs that were surveyed and does not 

include MCOs that were scheduled for a site visit by HCFA. The HCFA conducted 59 

site visits representing 204 managed care plans. We have reviewed this data as a 

complement to the survey we conducted. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 9 OEI-05-98-00591 
FINDINGS 

Over four-fifths of managed care organizations report that all 

of their systems are Y2K compliant 

Overall, 85 percent of MCO respondents claim that they are currently Y2K ready. About 

9 percent of these MCOs have not yet completed testing for their systems. An MCO is 

considered to have overall Y2K compliance if it reported that all applicable systems are 

Y2K ready. Our previous survey revealed that 22 percent of MCOs reported that their 

computer systems were Y2K ready. On average, 82 percent of MCOs reported Y2K 

compliance for individual computer systems. See Table 1 for more information. 

Table 1: Majority of MCOs Report Their Individual Computer Systems Y2K 

Compliant 

Systems Y2K Ready Not Y2K Ready Not Applicable 

Provider Payment 

Systems 

86% 6% 3% 

Member Enrollment 

Systems 

84% 7% 3% 

Premium Billing 

Systems 

83% 5% 8% 

Member Verification 

Systems 

81% 6% 7% 

Medical Information 

Systems 

75% 6% 13% 

OIG MCO Survey, 1999 

Almost all MCOs respondents report having ensured that vendor-supported 

systems are Y2K compliant 

Ninety-four percent of MCOs report that vendor-supported products, such as hardware, 

telecommunications and embedded processors, are compliant. Of those who reported 

ensuring vendor-supported products are compliant, 99 percent have established an 

inventory of vendor-supported products, 87 percent have obtained vendor Y2K 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 10 OEI-05-98-00591 
certifications, and 79 percent have taken steps to validate vendor’s claims of Y2K 

compliance. 

Almost all MCOs report having established recommended infrastructures in 

preparation for Y2K testing but most have not contracted out for independent 

assessment of Y2K readiness 

Ninety-six percent have formally assigned Y2K responsibility to a single program or 

project office. Ninety-seven percent of MCOs have defined Y2K compliance. Ninetythree percent have developed an organizational Y2K test and evaluation master plan, and 

83 percent have established test facilities to allow Y2K testing. The GAO recommends 

that businesses set up these specific infrastructures to assist in Y2K compliance planning 

and testing. 

Only 35 percent have contracted with an outside organization for an “independent 

verification and validation” assessment of Y2K readiness. The HCFA strongly 

recommends MCOs follow this course of action to ensure Y2K compliance. 

About one-half of managed care organizations indicate that 

they are taking steps toward ensuring compliance with 

external partners 

Fifty-six percent of MCOs report having received commitments from relevant data 

exchange partners to participate in end-to-end testing. Nine percent of MCOs felt such 

commitments were not applicable. Fifty percent of MCOs have tested exchanging data 

with their subcontractors’ systems and 35 percent of MCOs have tested exchanging data 

with their medical providers’ systems. Our previous study found that less than one quarter 

of MCOs had tested data exchanges with two thirds or more of these business partners. 

Approximately 80 percent report developing contingency 

plans; about 30 percent report testing their contingency 

plans 

Comparing the current survey to our previous study, we found an increase of 5 to 10 

percent of MCOs reporting that they have developed contingency plans related to specific 

computer systems. On average, 78 percent of MCOs report developing contingency plans 

compared to an average of 71 percent previously. See Figure 1 for more information. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 11 OEI-05-98-00591 
Figure 1: Contingency Plan Development: MCOs Report Progress 

OIG MCO Survey, 1999 

Currently, 28 percent of all MCO respondents report having tested contingency plans, 

compared to only 8 percent from the previous survey. According to HCFA and GAO, 

contingency planning and testing contingency plans are important aspects of every Year 

2000 conversion program. 

The HCFA required MCOs to submit contingency plans for review. The contingency 

plans were reviewed for content and feasibility of implementation. As of August 30, 1999, 

HCFA received 145 contingency plans representing 262 MCO contracts. Based on their 

analysis, HCFA determined that 33 percent of the contingency plans required little or no 

modification, while 67 percent needed major or complete revision. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 12 OEI-05-98-00591 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We received comments from the Health Care Financing Administration. Their comments 

are included as Appendix B. We appreciate HCFA’s cooperation in developing our 

survey and sharing the results of their on-site Y2K reviews of managed care organizations. 

We commend HCFA’s continued focus on readiness in light of the results of their on-site 

visits, their review of contingency plans, and our survey results. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 13 OEI-05-98-00591 
APPENDIX A 

Medicare Managed Care Organization Year 2000 Survey 

Testing Infrastructure Yes No Not Unknown 

Applicable 

1. Has your organization formally assigned Year 2000 test management 

authority and responsibility to a single program or project office? 

N=161 

2. Has your organization defined what Year 2000 compliance means? 

If No skip to Question 3, otherwise does the definition include the 

following items? 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

N=157 

No value for current date will cause any interruption in 

system operation. 

N=146 

Date-based system functionality must behave consistently 

for dates prior to, during and after Year 2000. 

N=148 

In all system interfaces and data storage areas, the century 

in any date must be specified either explicitly or by 

unambiguous algorithms. 

N=146 

Systems recognize Year 2000 as a leap year. 

N=145 

3. Has your organization developed an organizational Year 2000 test 

and evaluation master plan? 

N=160 

4. Has your organization established one or more test facilities that 

replicate the operating environment(s) to allow Year 2000 tests? 

N=161 

5. Has your organization ensured that vendor-supported products (i.e. 

hardware, systems, software, telecommunications, and embedded 

processors) are compliant? If No skip to question 6, otherwise has 

your organization completed the following? 

N=160 

96% 4% 0% 0% 

97% 3% 0% 0% 

93% 3% 1% 3% 

99% 0% 1% 1% 

94% 3% 1% 3% 

98% 1% 0% 1% 

93% 6% 1% 0% 

83% 13% 3% 1% 

94% 6% 0% 0% 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 14 OEI-05-98-00591 
 Yes No Not Unknown 

Applicable 

A. Has an inventory of vendor-supported products been 

established? 

N=149 99% 1% 0% 0% 

B. Have vendor certifications been obtained? 

N=149 87% 12% 0% 1% 

C. Have steps been taken to validate vendor’s claims? 

N=149 79% 20% 0% 1% 

6. Has your organization contracted with an outside organization for an 

“independent verification and validation” assessment of your 

organization’s Y2K readiness? 

N=161 35% 62% 1% 1% 

Computer Systems Testing 

7. Has your organization tested its enrollment system to ensure that it 

accurately processes date and time data (e.g. calculating, comparing 

and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 2000, and leap year 

calculations? 

N=161 77% 20% 3% 0% 

8. Has your organization tested its membership verification system to 

ensure that it accurately processes date and time data (e.g. 

calculating, comparing and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 

2000, and leap year calculations? 

N=161 76% 19% 5% 0% 

9. Has your organization tested its medical information systems to 

ensure that it accurately processes date and time data (e.g. 

calculating, comparing and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 

2000, and leap year calculations? 

N=160 71% 17% 13% 0% 

10. Has your organization tested its premium billing systems to ensure 

that it accurately processes date and time data (e.g. calculating, 

comparing and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 2000, and leap 

year calculations? 

N=160 76% 16% 8% 0% 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 15 OEI-05-98-00591 
 Yes No Not Unknown 

Applicable 

11. Has your organization tested its provider payment systems to ensure 

that it accurately processes date and time data (e.g. calculating, 

comparing and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 2000, and leap 

year calculations? 

N=161 78% 17% 4% 1% 

12. Has your organization tested its appeal and grievance systems to 

ensure that it accurately processes date and time data (e.g. 

calculating, comparing and sequencing) for the years 1999 and 

2000, and leap year calculations? 

N=160 59% 12% 27% 3% 

13. Is your organization’s member enrollment system Y2K compliant? 

N=160 

84% 7% 3% 6% 

14. Is your organization’s member verification system Y2K compliant? 

N=160 

81% 6% 7% 7% 

15. Is your organization’s medical information system Y2K compliant? 

N=160 

75% 6% 13% 6% 

16. Is your organization’s premium billing system Y2K compliant? 

N=160 83% 5% 8% 4% 

17. Is your organization’s provider payment system Y2K compliant? 

N=160 86% 6% 3% 6% 

18. Is your organization’s appeal and grievance system Y2K compliant? 

N=161 

67% 4% 25% 4% 

19. Have your relevant data exchange partners committed to 

participating in end-to-end testing? 

N=160 56% 24% 9% 11% 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 16 OEI-05-98-00591 
 Yes No Not Unknown 

Applicable 

20. Has your organization tested exchanging data between your system 

and your medical providers’ systems? 

N=161 35% 39% 25% 2% 

21. Has your organization tested exchanging data between your system 

and your subcontractors’ systems? 

N=161 50% 30% 17% 2% 

Contingency Plans 

22. Have you developed a contingency strategy for dealing with potential 

Y2K-related problems associated with your: 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

membership enrollment/disenrollment systems? 

N=159 83% 15% 3% 0% 

medical information systems (e.g. patient files, utilization)? 

N=160 73% 14% 13% 1% 

premium billing systems? 

N=160 79% 13% 8% 1% 

provider payment systems? 

N=160 81% 13% 6% 0% 

member appeal/grievance systems? 

N=161 67% 14% 18% 1% 

23. Have you tested your contingency plans? 

N=159 28% 70% 2% 0% 

Other Information 

24. Will your organization require that your medical providers 

demonstrate that their systems are Y2K compliant? 

N=158 42% 49% 4% 5% 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 17 OEI-05-98-00591 
 Yes No Not Unknown 

Applicable 

25. What percent of your medical providers have demonstrated that their 

computer systems are Y2K compliant? 

N=66 Average=39% 

26. Will your organization require that subcontractors demonstrate that 

their computer systems are Y2K compliant? 

N=159 65% 22% 9% 4% 

27. What percent of your subcontractors have demonstrated that their 

computer systems are Y2K compliant? 

N=103 Average=72% 

28. Can your plan continue to provide services to patients if Medicare 

payments were delayed? 

N=161 79% 10% 7% 4% 

If Yes, for how long? ________days/weeks/months 

(Please circle appropriate unit) 

N=112 Average=2 months 

Please use the space below to list any of your Y2K concerns that were not covered in this 

survey or anything that the Medicare program could do to improve Y2K outreach efforts. 

MCO Y2K Follow-up 18 OEI-05-98-00591 
APPENDIX B 

Agency Comments

MCO Y2K Follow-up 19 OEI-05-98-00591 
MCO Y2K Follow-up 20 OEI-05-98-00591