At 09:33 2013-02-17, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote:
This certainly implies that the software had a user-configurable
setting for what happens when a questionable claim comes in. Let's
ASSuME that's true and not that the behavior was in fact hard-coded.
Why would such software be designed to automatically pay ANY invalid
or questionable claim without prompting a review by a human first?
How is that good design?
Because that was demanded as part of the spec? It might not
have been considered that the loss could be very much. And that
might well have been true for the cases being
considered. Unfortunately, large amounts caused by bad data entry
might not have been considered.
1) Any programmer objecting may have been told to just do his job.
2) There may have been plans for a validation phase later in the
stream. Later, that phase is cut. Or the validation work is just
not done by the end user.
Sincerely,
Gene wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/20130218173425.NTMF1665.priv-edtnes28.telusplanet.net@edtncm04
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
