Fix HealthCare.gov with a new site that is highly compartmentalized...
One of the serious problems with the HealtCare.gov website was the fact that it was outsourced in the first place, which then placed a $634 million price tag on the effort. Who ever heard of a web-site costing that much no matter what it was intended to do?
In any event, outsourcing is one of the most serious issues the US government has had since Reagan (Yes, he's the initial culprit in a lot of this.) and in this case I would striongly suggest the reverse and bring the entire work back in-house and redeisgn a new and more efficient solution whileletting the outsourcers fix the issues with the current site.
This is a double-pronged effort but I don't believe there is much of an alternative if you want to keep the original site running while a new effort is inititiated.
From all of the technical analysis I have read so far, except for the front-end the entrire site is a complete mess, which I don;t quite understand. If a state was going to opt out of the endeavor than it was their responsibility provide an alternative for whichthe site would have transferred users to for such states. If participating in the effort than a single, fujnctional solution by the government should have been developed using the requirements of both states and insurance companies.
By modularizing by state and insurance companies, indivdiual web-sites could have been developed, which would have sat beneath the current interface, which should have been used simply as a portal to these individual sites. So instead of simply transferring a user to a state site in which a state had opted out of the program, users in participating states would have been directed to subsites all with their own individual databases, all of which could be combed by an administration facility that could accrue summary\detail results for analysis.
Compartmentalization of software development has fallen into disuse with the hype over re-usability, which I imagine is one of the techniques that was used in the development of the current site. However, re-usability has been proven over the years to be nothing more than hype except when implemented under very strict and limited circumstances. And I have seen in my own development efforts how it has turned projects into complete messes as everyone is trying to make everything "generic".
Having upwards of 6000 outsourced technicians on such an endeavor could never have defined usable re-usable components while making a mess of compartmentalization. You sijmply cannot control the outcome of such a massive project and recent analysis has found of such projects that this one had approximately only a 6% chance of success.
Had such a compartmentalization process been employed, the ACA could have been implemented in a phased approach as each state's site came online.
As it is, I don't see how the current software can be adequately repaired providing a platform for future extensions and enhancements given the reports about the technical issues involved...