Swaraj PatilSachin Khandge Please check this pending point.

Adding the previous conversations happened mail -

12th Jan 2016

Hello Jennifer,

I tried reproducing the faced problem ( it is getting reproduced )

When employee's SPA Status is either LOA - Off Rotation OR Active on Rotation with Eff Date 01/01/2016

• With the above customization employee becomes eligible for 2 rates namely 2016 off rotation 20 percent and 2016 off rotation 80 percent.
• According to our expectations, Employee should ideally get the second rate after 3 months from the enrollment effective date ie, 01/01/2016 ( as this rate has effective date rule set - First of month of following 3 months )
• Hence after 01/04/2016 - employee cost for Bundled Health should be $101.72 + $406.88 = $508.7
• Problem here is - employee is getting $508.7 cost from 01/01/2016 only ! Both rates are eligible for employee

According to our current implementation, during enrollment all eligible rates gets mapped to employee irrespective of the effective date rules set at Rate level.

Possible Work- Around :

• From form builder, we can set default value for SPA Status field ( demographics ) as 'LOA Protected Leave' instead of 'Active On Rotation' ( this will make ' 2016 off rotation 80 percent' rate ineligible for employees who have not made any changes in this field on demographics )
• Now Enroll to ' Bundled Health ' plan ( currently eligible rate is 2016 off rotation 20 percent ie, $101.72 )
• Now change SPA Status to 'LOA - Off Rotation or Active - On Rotation' ( rate 2016 off rotation 80 percent becomes eligible )
• In this above case, the effective date rule set at '2016 off rotation 80 percent' rate works as expected. After 3 months from date on enrollment, Employees cost becomes $101.72 + $406.88 = $508.7. Before that its only $101.72

Please let us know, if this works for you.

Thanks & Regards,
Alankar Chavan

--------------------------------------------

13th Jan 2016

Hello Jennifer,

We tried doing the mentioned scenarios. Actually, system is behaving as per the expectations. Have a look on below observations -

Environment - Production
Company - MHNGS for HSPL
Test Employee with Class 2 as - Off Rotation

1. As indicated in below mail, when Employee has his SPA Status as ' Active-OnRotation ' & ' LOA-ProtectedLeave ' - system shows correct rates ie, $508.7 & $101.72 respectively.
2. When we changed Employee's SPA Status from ' LOA-ProtectedLeave ' to ' LOA-OffRotation ' - both the rates ' 2016 off rotation 20 percent ($101.72) ' & ' 2016 off rotation 80 percent ($406.88) ' becomes eligible for this employee
3. For 01/01/2016 - The cost shown is $101.72 as ' 2016 off rotation 80 percent ($406.88) ' rate is associated with an effective date rule : use waiting period = first of following three months.
4. After 3 months from 01/01/2016 -> Total cost shown for employee is $101.72 + $406.88 = $508.7 which is as expected. To verify employee gets this amount after 01/04/2016, we did following -

• We can raise a QE with effective date say 05/01/2016 and see the plan's employee cost is $508.7
• We can also fetch out the Enrollment Report from 01/01/2016 to 03/31/2016, 04/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 or 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 to see plan's cost in first 3 months from election effective date and after three months from election effective date.

[ Note - we also tried fetching the enrollment report for mentioned 'RateTwo Test' employee from MHNGS. Costs are correct ]

Please do let us know, if any further information needed from our end

Thanks & Regards,
Alankar Chavan

-------------------------------------------

19th Jan 2016

Thanks Alankar – additional feedback from the Client is below

I understand how the system works and agree if someone if moved from on rotation to off rotation that they rate is applying accurately including the waiting period.

However, where we have identified the issue are on people that we manually forced into LOA to ensure that during OE they were seeing the accurate rate in the site. We then loaded a change file moving them to LOA-OffRotation change status as of the date the full rate should be applying. When we did this no rate change occurred. I tried to confirm this morning if this is now working as expected – however, I am unable to run any future dated enrollment report in Production with rates on MHNGS.

It just continues to report loading and no data is extracted.

---------------------------------------------

03rd Feb 2016

Hi Alankar – Paula Blanchette is one of the individuals that was mentioned initially. Additional comments below –

I wasn’t able to see if I could run reports again until this morning and I can. I ran a report effective dated 02/01 and 05/01 to see if I saw a rate change on a particular person (Dana Powell) and no change exists. This is a person that we initially loaded into LOA-Protected Leave to ensure as of 01/01/2016 the rate showed at the 20%. However, beginning 02/01 she is supposed to be charged the full premium. As a result, we loaded a change to move her to the LOA-OffRotation as of 02/01. You will notice on her record no rate change has taken effect. We need to understand why the rates aren’t adjusting on scenarios where a SPA Status is changed at various effective dates once within the Off Rotation class and have this fixed ASAP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

03rd Feb 2016

Hello Jennifer,

We had a look on employee 'Dana Powell'. For this employee, appropriate rate [ 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ] is not getting mapped.

We tested this scenario manually -

• We made his SPA Status as LOA ProtectedLeave with Effective Date 01/01/2016
• With the same effective date - we made his enrollment in Bundled Health - System showed correct rate
• Now, we initiated a QE effective from 02/01/2016 and made his SPA status as LOA - OffRotation
• From backend we checked that whether employee is getting both of the rates ie, 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent & 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent from 05/01/2016 - This worked well !

Development team will try to find out the root cause for the problem occurred for 'Dana Powell' & let you know the same.

Meanwhile, please let us know if you want us to find more employees who can have this problem on MHNGS. We can send you the list and do data correction if needed.

Thanks & Regards,
Alankar Chavan

----------------------------------------------
04th Feb 2016

Hi Jennifer,

Please find the attached list of affected employees and let us know if we need to do correction for this.
[this list covers affected employees mentioned in thel ist provided by UHC too]
[Password is MHNGS!1234]
Regards,
Swaraj Patil

---------------------------

10th Feb 2016

Hi Jennifer,

We are not able reproduce this problem at our end. Because of this we are not able to find our exact root cause behind this problem.
Client need to import earlier shared list of employees for SPA status. After this import all shared employees will be proper rates i.e. 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent

Please let us know if any more details required from us.

Regards,
Swaraj Patil

-----------------------------------------

HARBINGER QA COMMENT - 19th Feb 2016

Hello Swaraj Patil Jennifer Leugers

As per the discussion with Swaraj Patil We have again tried few scenarios to see how the system is behaving -

*Scenario 1 *

1. Employee enrolled in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - Employee's SPA status is On Rotation here
He got both of the Rate ie, 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72) + 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (406.88)
Expected
2. Employee's SPA STatus was changed to Protected Leave from Demographic Page - effective from 01/01/2016
He got 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72)
Expected
3. We changed above employee's SPA Status to Off Rotation through IMPORT - effective from 02/01/2016
He got 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72) at present and 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72) + 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (406.88) after 06/01/2016
Expected

*Scenario 1 *

1. Employee enrolled in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - Employee's SPA status is On Rotation here
He got both of the Rate ie, 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72) + 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (406.88)
Expected
2. We changed above employee's SPA Status to Off Rotation through IMPORT - effective from 02/01/2016
He got 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent (101.72) + 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (406.88) at Present and after 06/01/2016
Expected (as in both of the steps same rates are eligible - discussed with Swaraj)

I am concerned about the rule set on '2016 Off Rotation 80 percent' - it is 'First of month following 3 months'
According to this Scenario 1 - Step 3 : This rate should get eligible from 05/01/2016 OR 06/01/2016 ?

Also, about what we are going to do with the affected employees now having SPA Status as Off Rotation & haven't got expected Rates.

We are working on data correction for this. We will complete this by tomorrow, 02/23/2016.

Hi Jennifer,

We have completed correction for earlier shared list of employees. We have verified that mentioned employees got 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent rate properly.
Please let us know if any changes required.

Regards,
Swaraj Patil

Hi all - do we have a root cause for the rate issue?

Hi all - we can't close items without root causes for UHC. Please see my previous comment.

Hi Jennifer,

We need to keep eye on this issue only in case of - Employee whose SPA status is OnRotation or OffRotaion at the time of election. Then waiting period for 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent rate will not apply properly.

System will work properly if SPA status is LOA-ProtectedLeave at the time of election.

Root cause of this issue is - As per current implementation waiting period applied on rate is not considered at the election. We have suggested work around for this - Employee's SPA status need to change from LOA-ProtectedLeave to OnRotation or OffRotaion after this waiting period get applied properly 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent rate.I think We have already conveyed this to UHC.

Regards,
Swaraj Patil

Thanks. Please advise on root causes of the SPA and rate issue. Please see UHC comments below.

The issue below is pertaining to individuals that didn’t have rates applied in the month of January. For whatever reason the site future dated the effective dates of rates on a handful of people to 02/01. We need to understand what caused this to occur and resolve so a non-issue going forward. Let us know.

Although the below response is not on the issue on which a status is being requested – the below response still needs research. This wasn’t communicated and it was advised that continued research was going to be done to identify why rate changes were not applying/being recognized when a SPA status was changed. The impacted records were corrected however, the root cause was never provided.

Hi Jennifer,

We are working on finding root cause of it. We will share that with you.

Hi all - any updates on the root cause? Can't close this one out without it ...

Hi Jennifer,

We are not able to reproduce this issue at our end hence we are not getting exact root cause of it. If same problem exists for any employee in future or any other sample after correction. That will be helpful to find out root cause of it.

We are also trying at our end to find root cause of it, we will update you if we get anything on this.

Did we try to recreate the steps that UHC did?

Additionally, I did attempt to test this using a test person and believe I am getting the same result although it is hard to tell as the user display of the rate seems to be not working as well. See Jackie Test. I added myself as a New Hire resulting in a NH Benefits Effective date of 01/01/2016. I then applied a class change using an admin event to make myself off rotation as of 02/17. The site wouldn’t allow me to update the pay schedule in the site so I imported with an effective date of 02/17/16. However, when I now look at that employee it is showing the monthly rate as of 01/01/16 when it should be showing as of 02/17/2016.

Hi Rakesh Roy,

Can anyone from QA team help us to reproduce this issue? This will be helpful to find out root cause of it.

Alankar ChavanDeepali TidkeHrishikesh DeshpandePlease check and see how it can be reproduced at our end.

FYI Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy Jennifer Leugers

Hello Swaraj Patil,

I did following actions today - [ i did all the possible changes which have been done with above mentioned employee Jackie Test on MHNGS for HSPL - Production - we referred his view History for doing the same]

1. added an employee - Class : On Rotation
2. enrolled him in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - he got 2016 On Rotation rate - Expected
3. changed his SPA Status from On Rotation to Off Rotation - effective from 01/01/2016
4. raised an Admin event effective from 02/17/2016
5. changed his class from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 02/17/2016
6. changed his payroll schedule from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 01/01/2016

Ideally employee currently must have got 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) and 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) rate after 3 months.

As we checked in back end - employees 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) and 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) rates are getting terminated by 12/31/2015 !

May be this might be a reason to our main problem of employees not getting 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) rate after 3 months waiting period ?

Also the question arises here if these two rates are getting terminated by 12/31/2015 - what rate employee is currently getting from 01/01/2016 and 02/14/2016 - we saw in back end once - the On rotation rate did not get terminated .

I hope this might help us to find the root cause.

Hi Jennifer,

We will share more analysis on this by tomorrow, 03/15/2016.

Hi Jennifer,

Please find the details for this issue -

Concern: Rate no getting applied properly.

Cause: After trying out different scenario similar to mentioned employee, Here is our analysis about it - when employee with On rotation class did enrollment, he gets 2016 On Rotation rate which is correct. When employee class get changes to Off rotation with effective 02/17/2016, he will get 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent rate from 03/01/2016 (which as per company level rule) and will get 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (which is as per waiting period rule applied on rate). But when employee's payroll schedule is changed with effective 01/01/2016 his both Off Rotation Rate gets termed as never effective. We found this is problem with system, ideally which should not term employee's future effective rate. Right now as employee is not eligible to Off Rotation rates on 01/01/2016 these rates are getting termed. Because such reason some of employee did get rate properly.

Correction: We will find out exact issue in code and will fix this problem. We will update you once this fix will available on stage for testing.

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

We found exact issue in code for this problem. Right now system if employee get (i.e. 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate) rate which effective from future date i.e. 03/01/2016 and employee did some change with less effective date i.e. 01/01/2016 and on 01/01/2016 employee is not eligible to 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate (which is effective from 03/01/2016) on 01/01/2016 (election effective date) then his rate 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate get terminated. This is not correct behavior. We have started code fix for this, we will update you once it is completed.

Swaraj PatilCould you please update the Dev completion date for this issue?

Deployed on LB.

Can not test because of WT 1449 on Local

FYI Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy

Hello Swaraj Patil

I did following actions today - MHNGS - WT Stage

1. added an employee - Class : On Rotation
2. enrolled him in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - he got 2016 On Rotation rate - Expected
3. changed his SPA Status from On Rotation to Off Rotation - effective from 01/01/2016
4. raised an Admin event effective from 02/17/2016
5. changed his class from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 02/17/2016
6. changed his payroll schedule from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 01/01/2016

When we checked the eligible Rates to this employee through back end -
2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) is eligible from 03/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 and 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) is eligible from 06/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 - as per expectations
Where as - 2016 On Rotation should be effective from 01/01/2016 to 02/16/2016. But is is effective till 12/31/2016
Which means even after being an OffRoation employee - he will be getting 2016 On Rotation costs though out the year - which is wrong

FYI Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy Jennifer Leugers

Hello Swaraj Patil,

I did following actions today - MHNGS - WT Stage

1. added an employee - Class : On Rotation
2. enrolled him in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - he got 2016 On Rotation rate - Expected
3. changed his SPA Status from On Rotation to Off Rotation - effective from 01/01/2016
4. raised an Admin event effective from 02/17/2016
5. changed his class from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 02/17/2016
6. changed his payroll schedule from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 01/01/2016

When we checked the eligible Rates to this employee through back end -

2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) is eligible from 03/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) is eligible from 06/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 2016 On Rotation ($508.60) is eligible from 01/01/2016 to 02/16/2016

which is as per the expectations

Ready for Stage

As this was reopened on Local - Stage and Production deployment dates will be getting affected
Stage - 03/28/2016
Production - 03/29/2016

FYI Deepali Tidke Jennifer Leugers

Hello Swaraj Patil

I did following actions today - MHNGS - Stage

1. added an employee - Class : On Rotation
2. enrolled him in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - he got 2016 On Rotation rate - Expected
3. changed his SPA Status from On Rotation to Off Rotation - effective from 01/01/2016
4. raised an Admin event effective from 02/17/2016
5. changed his class from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 02/17/2016
6. changed his payroll schedule from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 01/01/2016

When we checked the eligible Rates to this employee through back end -

2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) is eligible from 03/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) is eligible from 06/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 2016 On Rotation ($508.60) is eligible from 01/01/2016 to 02/16/2016

which is as per the expectations

Ready for Production

FYI Swaraj Patil Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy

Hello Jennifer Leugers,

We did following actions today - MHNGS - Production

1. added an employee - Class : On Rotation
2. enrolled him in Bundled plan effective from 01/01/2016 - he got 2016 On Rotation rate - Expected
3. changed his SPA Status from On Rotation to Off Rotation - effective from 01/01/2016
4. raised an Admin event effective from 02/17/2016
5. changed his class from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 02/17/2016
6. changed his payroll schedule from On Rotation to Off Rotation - 01/01/2016

When we checked the eligible Rates to this employee through back end -

2016 Off Rotation 20 percent ($101.72) is eligible from 03/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 Off Rotation 80 percent ($406.88) is eligible from 06/01/2016 to 12/31/2016
2016 2016 On Rotation ($508.60) is eligible from 01/01/2016 to 02/16/2016

which is as per the expectations

Can you please review this at your end and close this item ?

Please see below

I agree changing class 2 alters the rates correctly – however, for an employee in an Offshore class moving between SPA statuses on varying dates the rates don’t adjust. The system seems to ignore the change and it doesn’t impact rates.

Alankar Chavan Please see.

Hi all - any updates on this?

With the other prioritized assigned task - we have not looked in to this yet - we will update on this as early as possible

FYI Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy Amnesh GoelJyoti Mayne

Hello Jennifer Leugers

We tried following scenarios with three test employees [all have class 2 - off rotation]

1. Test Employee One - SPA Status as Active On Rotation

• This emp got enrolled in plan Bundled Health eff from 01/01/2016 [got both of the rates - 2016 off rotation 20 percent & 2016 off rotation 80 percent]
• Changed his SPA status from Active On Rotation to LOA Protected Leave eff from 02/01/2016

Actual and Expected Result : Employee has only one active rate now ie, 2016 off rotation 20 percent [as 2016 off rotation 80 percent rate is not eligible for LOA Protected Leave ]

2. Test Employee Two - SPA Status is LOA Protected Leave

• This emp got enrolled in plan Bundled Health eff from 01/01/2016 [got 2016 off rotation 20 percent rate]
• Changed this employee's SPA Status to Active On Rotation eff from 02/01/2016

Actual and Expected Result : Employee has got both of the rates now ie, 2016 off rotation 20 percent from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 & 2016 off rotation 80 percent from 06/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 - as this rate has effective date rule of use waiting period - first of month following 3 months

3. Test Employee Three - SPA Status is Active On Rotation

• This emp got enrolled in plan Bundled Health eff from 01/01/2016 [got both of the rates - 2016 off rotation 20 percent & 2016 off rotation 80 percent]
• Changed this employee's SPA Status to LOA Off Rotation eff from 02/01/2016

Actual and Expected Result : Employee has got both of the rates now ie, 2016 off rotation 20 percent from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016 & 2016 off rotation 80 percent from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016

Please let us know in case of any discrepancy or unexpected behavior in the system

FYI Deepali Tidke Rakesh Roy Jyoti Mayne Amnesh Goel

Hello Jennifer Leugers

Can you please let us know, are you facing any difficultly or inconsistent behavior with the system in case of Employee Class / SPA Status / Data changes ?

NOTE

• 2016 On Rotation - Whenever employee becomes eligible to this rate after making any data change - this rate will be getting effective from First of month Following Date of Change [company level effective date rule]
• 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent - Whenever employee becomes eligible to this rate after making any data change - this rate will be getting effective from First of month Following Date of Change [company level effective date rule]
• 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent - Whenever employee becomes eligible to this rate after making any data change - this rate will be getting effective from First of month Following 3 months [Rate effective date rule]_

Please see below

I’m not seeing in the below scenarios where a record was tested with a SPA identified as OFF Rotation in a LOA-ProtectedLeaveSPA status and then the only change on the record is a change in the SPA Status to LOA-OffRotation as of a future date. This is the scenario where the system ignored the change and didn’t adjust premium. Please have them test this scenario and let us know.

Deepali Tidke Alankar Chavan Check this.

please check

FYI Jyoti Mayne,Satya,Deepali Tidke,Rakesh Roy,Pradeep Kanojia [X],Sachin Khandge,Samir

Hello Jennifer Leugers,

We tested the suggested scenario. Please have a look-

1. We took an employee having Class - Off Rotation
2. Changed his SPA Status to LOA-ProtectedLeave (effective from 01/01/2016)
3. Enrolled him in Bundled Plan - effective from 01/01/2016 (with OE mode)

In this case - employee got Rate '2016 Off Rotation 20 percent' which is expected.
1/1/20016 12/31/2016 - $101.72

4. Raised a QE from 02/17/2016 and changed SPA Status to LOA ProtectedLeave now

This employee gets rate '2016 Off Rotation 80 percent' from 06/01/2016 [as this rate has effective date rule = use waiting period : First of Month Following 3 Months] which is expected.

1/1/20016 12/31/2016 - $101.72
6/1/2016 12/31/2016 - $406.88

Now we will look at confirmation statement:

As employee enrolled in plan with 1/1/2016 effective date, confirmation statement will always show election effective date as 1/1/2016. This election details have been shown under Future enrollment summary.

Internally system will deduct $101.72+ $406.88 =$508.60 cost within 6/1/2016 to 12/31/2016 period and $101.72 from 1/1/2016 to 5/31/2016 period.

Following SA Utility screen shots will clear it more :
1.
2.

Please find below back end database screen shot of rates:

Please let us know if you need more information and we can also discuss this over call if required.

Hi all - there were two issues originally brought up. One was the PDHT mapping and one was the rate issue. I feel that we have closed out the PDHT mapping issue and provided the three Cs. I still need the three Cs on the original rate issue.

Jennifer LeugersCould you please check comments provided by Swaraj on 15th Mar and 16th Mar?

Rakesh Roy The comments below are what I need answered ... what was the exact issue?
Correction: We will find out exact issue in code and will fix this problem. We will update you once this fix will available on stage for testing.

Hi Jennifer,

Please find the details for this issue -

Concern: Rate no getting applied properly.

Cause: After trying out different scenario similar to mentioned employee, Here is our analysis about it - when employee with On rotation class did enrollment, he gets 2016 On Rotation rate which is correct. When employee class get changes to Off rotation with effective 02/17/2016, he will get 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent rate from 03/01/2016 (which as per company level rule) and will get 2016 Off Rotation 80 percent (which is as per waiting period rule applied on rate). But when employee's payroll schedule is changed with effective 01/01/2016 his both Off Rotation Rate gets termed as never effective. We found this is problem with system, ideally which should not term employee's future effective rate. Right now as employee is not eligible to Off Rotation rates on 01/01/2016 these rates are getting termed. Because such reason some of employee did get rate properly.

Correction: We will find out exact issue in code and will fix this problem. We will update you once this fix will available on stage for testing.

Jennifer Leugers
See 16th Mar comment:-
We found exact issue in code for this problem. Right now system if employee get (i.e. 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate) rate which effective from future date i.e. 03/01/2016 and employee did some change with less effective date i.e. 01/01/2016 and on 01/01/2016 employee is not eligible to 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate (which is effective from 03/01/2016) on 01/01/2016 (election effective date) then his rate 2016 Off Rotation 20 percent Rate get terminated. This is not correct behavior.

Jennifer Leugers Please update for next pending action on this?

Jennifer Leugers Please update

Hi all - I think there were two issues on this item. Once was the PDHT which agree is closed. The second was the root cause for the $0 rates in January - looked like the waiting period was getting applied on the rates. That is what is still open as I need the root cause. Please see attached email.

From: Venkatesh Pujari venkatesh.pujari@harbingergroup.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:36 AM
To: Jennifer Leugers
Cc: WT_DEV; swaraj patil
Subject: Re: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi Jennifer,

Dev team will update you on this by tomorrow.

Thanks & Regards,
Venkatesh.

From: "Jennifer Leugers" <jennifer.leugers@ebsbenefits.com>
To: "Venkatesh Pujari" <venkatesh.pujari@harbingergroup.com>
Cc: "WT_DEV" <wt_dev@harbingergroup.com>, "swaraj patil" <swaraj.patil@harbingergroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:49:26 PM
Subject: RE: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi Venkatesh – any updates on this?

From: Venkatesh Pujari venkatesh.pujari@harbingergroup.com
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 6:53 AM
To: Jennifer Leugers
Cc: WT_DEV; swaraj patil
Subject: Re: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi Jennifer,<br><br>Due other priority tasks dev team could not find the root cause of this issue. We will update you as soon as we find the root cause.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Venkatesh.

Thanks & Regards,
Venkatesh.

From: "Jennifer Leugers" <jennifer.leugers@ebsbenefits.com>
To: "Venkatesh Pujari" <venkatesh.pujari@harbingergroup.com>
Cc: "WT_DEV" <wt_dev@harbingergroup.com>, "swaraj patil" <swaraj.patil@harbingergroup.com>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 7:34:57 PM
Subject: RE: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi all – any root cause on this issue I can share with UHC?

From: Venkatesh Pujari venkatesh.pujari@harbingergroup.com
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Jennifer Leugers
Cc: wt dev; Swaraj Patil
Subject: Re: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi Jennifer,

We have recalculated the rate for the affected employees on MHNGS company on Production.The root cause for this issue will be sent to you as soon as possible. Please verify and let us know if you need any more information on this.

Thanks & Regards,
Venkatesh.

From: "Jennifer Leugers" <jennifer.leugers@ebsbenefits.com>
To: "Swaraj Patil" <swaraj.patil@harbingergroup.com>
Cc: "wt dev" <wt_dev@harbingergroup.com>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:55:55 PM
Subject: RE: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi there – yes please correct and please advise of root cause. Thanks.

From: Swaraj Patil swaraj.patil@harbingergroup.com
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 6:52 AM
To: Jennifer Leugers
Cc: wt dev
Subject: Re: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Password is MHNGS@123

Regards,
Swaraj Patil

From: "Swaraj Patil" <swaraj.patil@harbingergroup.com>
To: "Jennifer Leugers" <jennifer.leugers@ebsbenefits.com>
Cc: "wt dev" <wt_dev@harbingergroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:21:29 PM
Subject: Re: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Hi Jennifer,

We have found this issue for attached list of employees. Now, We have tried this for one employee, after rate recalculation they are getting proper effective date for rates.
Please let us know if we need to correction for all affected employees.

We are working on finding exact root cause of it, we will update you on this.

Regards,
Swaraj Patil

From: "Jennifer Leugers" <jennifer.leugers@ebsbenefits.com>
To: "wt dev" <wt_dev@harbingergroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:17:26 AM
Subject: FW: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP

Please see below and advise

From: Sivigny, Jacqueline M jacqueline_sivigny@uhc.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Jennifer Leugers
Cc: Balestriere, Nicholas; Coca, Yamilka; Adkison, Robyn L
Subject: MHNGS - Rating Issue Requiring Resolution ASAP
Importance: High

Hi Jen,

Ryan was auditing the Direct Bill file and we noticed some issues with people reflecting $0 in rates. We did further research and it appears the rate change is applying but is applying on 02/01/16 when it should be applying as of 01/01/16. Keep in mind when reviewing the below example until 01/01/16 – off rotation benefits weren’t supported in the OnlinEnroll tool. As a result, the gap in coverage from 12/01-12/31 is accurate since Direct Bill manages enrollment and invoicing until January 2016.

Michael Watson is one example of these people reflecting a $0 rate. He was an On Rotation SPA up until 11/28/15. At that time, he was moved off rotation. Per company rules, the change should take effect on 12/01 as the on rotation coverage is to be maintained through month end of the change. Oddly the PVRC’s are operating as they should updating as of the appropriate effective date that we began offering coverage to Off Rotation SPAs. I also added a test person to the site and added a future class change and still the PVRCs worked perfectly.

The issue lies in the rates. For those SPAs experiencing changes to an off rotation class – the system for whatever reason is applying the rate with a waiting period. We aren’t able to identify why the system is applying a waiting period of FOM following Date of Change as there is no waiting period on one of the off rotation rates.

Additionally, I did attempt to test this using a test person and believe I am getting the same result although it is hard to tell as the user display of the rate seems to be not working as well. See Jackie Test. I added myself as a New Hire resulting in a NH Benefits Effective date of 01/01/2016. I then applied a class change using an admin event to make myself off rotation as of 02/17. The site wouldn’t allow me to update the pay schedule in the site so I imported with an effective date of 02/17/16. However, when I now look at that employee it is showing the monthly rate as of 01/01/16 when it should be showing as of 02/17/2016.

We need this resolved ASAP and to understand the root cause. Let us know ASAP.

Thanks,

Hi Vijay Siddha, assigning to you as Jennifer Leugers is looking for the root cause for the issue as per her comments added yesterday.

Hi Deepali,

Can mentioned scenario be verified with Alankar & share updates with client. He has previously tested this & created scenario.

Thanks & Regards,
Satya Prakash

Satya Alankar is busy with mobile testing and Team is fully allocated today.

Shubhankar Joshi Can you please check since as per your last comment Jennifer is looking for root cause, if needed you can take Alankar's help.

Hi Satya, could you assign this to a developer to confirm on the root cause for the zero rates issue?

CC: Vijay Siddha, Rakesh Roy

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

Please find below 3C's:

Concern: people reflecting a $0 rate

Cause: There was an issue in rate routine for rate effective date when employee data got changed. That's why employee got $0 rate for some period.

Correction: We have handled this scenario and patch was deployed on production.