tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 31, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
we had been together for nearly a year -- actually, for over a year. and when the information first came to me via an anonymous followed threeas or four days later by a second complaint. i took those very seriously. n investigation. many were interviewed for that investigation. processthrough the where the report was presented that it will tell you
was the hardest decision i had ever had to make in my air force career. i did not shy away from it out because it was another commandery and i knew the individual. potentially long-term promising career. of my legal advice advisor. i sought the advice of my vice and a few other trusted commanders. process, i did not rush through it. i tossed and turned with it. in the end, i made the decision were i lost faith, trust, and
confidence in his ability to command. it did not matter that i knew and seemed to be very new but when the allegations substantiated on some of the things that he had , there was no question that it was the right thing to do. the command climate that it set when the commander was removed. i did not know the full context of what occurred in that .ituation it probably should have been brought to attention sooner. objective.can be
they can take all of those things into account. they wrestle with it day in and day out. what do we need for good order and discipline in the overall unit? i think the commanders can be objective and that's a very difficult situation. thank you. >> thank you for that question. i know it is something that has been brought up, the conflict of interest, and it's a valid question. sometimes they flunk the test. command 101 is do the right thing.
all of the services have a similar phrase that conveys the but commanders are the guardians of that value. it means that nobody is bigger than the team. nobody is bigger than the mission including the commander. in regards to an individual that you know, and like ralph jodice experience.the same i had an officer had to remove in my direct report that i've known for more than 20 years as .riends we had to distinguish between the uncomfortable and difficult. what was right and what was easy.
it's not a difficult decision. it's uncomfortable referred to in my for statement, command 101 is do the right thing. i think most commanders understand that. if you are a commander, you have to understand that. ,n regards to command climate theral, i appreciate comments that you made. i would turn it on its head and say you are more likely to do more damage to the command and your career, if that's important to you, if you don't take action. there is nothing more climateing to a command than lowering your standards. did any of you ever look unfavorably on a subordinate commander who referred a case to
trial because it was indicative of a bad climate in their unit? >> i cannot recall doing that, no. >> i have not either. i think all inquiries need to be looked at. the stats are not important. what's important as your role as a commander in command is a privilege. with command authority comes responsibilities and accountability and that is what soldiers, men and women and their families look to the commander for. similar to general brady, i've also had to relieve commanders from command climate. bradyassure you a general said, the cost of not doing the right and is much more damaging. soldiers are looking to you to ee what actions you take in
disciplining poor performance and not disciplining poor performance. it is not invisible to them. all it does is demoralize soldiers you are working hard and seeing those who were not being disciplined or taken care of. in order to establish that good order and discipline, the good commander and leadership does both. they establish that they will do anything for you if they know that you will take care of them. >> this is jim campbell. if i could give this a shot, sir? the two questioned you brought up are the toughest and they're the ones that your subordinate watch. and soldiers will if i could share with the panel, i will do the short and to the point.
. had this experience as a col level commander and this was in somalia when one of our one soldiers had done a great job in a really of a cold spot. i was so impressed with his composure in that situation that i sought him out to thank him for doing his job. he said he just did what he was trained to do. at every opportunity i would trumpet this young man as being what we all want to be, low-key, no fanfare, doing his job. low and behold, i wish i could put an end to that sentence. he got in so much trouble i had to refer him to a court-martial. what it taught me is what you look for is three things. you look for competence, commitment, and character. when it's most dangerous is when a person is most competent and has that character issue and that is when you have to step up.
to your other point, which is a great one and that i had not given a lot of thought to want to view had just mentioned it, about how i were to look if i firmred charges, i'm a believer and i shared this with junior officers that the day you arrive as a leader is the day the respect and admiration of those you serve to do the right thing is more important than any praise you get for how people look at you. thatave to stay to standard, in my opinion, to be a solid commander. bryant? >> for those on the phone -- >> with a conflict of interest, you have higher standards and the difficult thing for me, the most uncomfortable, is when you youde you don't think should go forward with something or move further on allegations
with someone that you are close to. ability and it is incumbent upon you to send it out to your higher commander and give the matter to them. that is an option we have and is higher commanders, they have to understand you get those with no questions asked if a lower send it up to you. i've taken cases) known there was a popular person there that was the accused. they did not have to deal with that issue. i do believe people can make the difficult decision and go difficultt it is more and there should be some introspection if you are close to someone to make sure that you have been objective. we have mechanisms for that, which is the higher command. they should help you deal with that at higher command as well but i think it's an important thing. likes thank you. mr. bryant. tracks my name is harvey bryant.
for those on the phone, i parachuted in about 30 minutes ago. we have heard from this panel have been repeated over time. majority ofard the general brady's and the rest of you. i preface my question with an commandersthat all when we talk about trust, we talk about caring for them. they have to trust that it's a full-time job where we are their health and welfare. that also means medically and safety wise. i assume commanders are still encouraged to maintain safety within their organization so that people are not slipping and falling and busting their head in the motor pool, whatever it happens to be.
and also medical safety. sexually transmitted diseases go more than the norm, if meningitis breaks out in a particular unit but nowhere , commandersulosis have that responsibility, do they not? i don't mean to be facetious or smart with you, but i think it's a decent analogy. how many of you, ab commanders, have made the decision on when someone in your command needed operation or go to the hospital? isn't that the function of technicians have a doctors, lawyers, and how do you feature that as affecting morale in your unit when it is not your decision whether this person needs an appendectomy, heart catheterization, amputation,
whatever it might be that they need hospital care for. isn't that the function of the dr.-technician? , iyour troops then say thought you were making all decisions. the why does he need to have his appendix taken out? i don't think there's anything wrong with his kidneys. i ask how, in this context, this particular issue fits in that the commander must make all of the decisions about everything for everybody. >> that's not a good analogy because we are talking about behavior. >> isn't it the commanders -- >> if somebody breaks their arm, you don't decide whether or not it would be a splint.
i understand you're responsible. all commanders are within the unit, but when something goes wrong, when something goes bad, isn't that the medical people's decision? >> most commanders are not medical experts but we better be behavior experts. command is about behavior. background, or a we would not be commanders, but youreal expertise -- when make someone a commander, you're most interested in when you sit on the command selection board, when i'm confident each of us has, it's different from a .romotion board
command selection boards are the are hated by law and what you can do. command is not. you need to have candid discussions about the judgment of this individual. everyone in the command selection board is technically competent. the things we need to make judgments about more our behavior including sexual assault. >> as a commander, don't you believe that if someone in your unit gets a broken arm or needs treatment, some in has that sort that you can look into the conditions in which that happened or take actions to
ensure they get treatment and make sure it does not happen for anyone else? >> it's not an isolated event. >> it can reflect other things about the unit. >> correct. to make awanted in my career in law enforcement, you cannot help but sometimes be a little jaded at that nobody isd infallible. when you look at the current system, we have law enforcement investigators that airing the course of the investigation work hand-in-hand with the legal community to ensure that evidence is being collected properly. then when it is presented to a commander, it gets advice and judgment with another lawyer to ensure that they want to go forward with prosecuting the offense or not.
case when the decision is lawyer, thethe advisor, the commander, there is also the recourse to go further to pursue that as well. that is an aspect i think we have forgotten. when we take one individual out of the decision-making aspect of that entire chain. we are starting to lessen the opportunity for covering the checks and balances and that your infallibility of anyone am person is kept in check by , i'mg the commander out not sure they would say they are .nfallible by themselves >> the medical analogy would only work if the people doing
the procedure where laymen. when you have people making the your revocable decision, they are laymen and not lawyers, so you have fundamentally different processes and their evaluating laymen anderms of commanders. you go to the civilian side and you have the president with authority to oversee aspect of the judgment that are not lawyers. the doctor is more like the pilot. i've had pilots that work for me that make the decision and they take care of that technical area. it is very different because in the end, they are lay people that make the a revocable decision.
>> the pilot decides how is going to land and if she's going to land regardless of who else is on board. i'm trying to point out, i think, through this question is, hypothetically, it is the dr., the medical community, whether oris in the combat situation somewhere else in the world. the doctors are making those and i hope they would be the proper people to be .aking that decision it does not mean they will be held responsible for ensuring the health and save the of their unit. impetus.l be that
doctors are ruling that and i'm we turno say that if this over to someone else, some other entity hypothetically, military lawyers, the commanders will not care about sexual assault anymore. i think you have pretty clearly said yes, you will. new continued to emphasize and be responsible for sexual assault in the units just as, to repeat myself, they are responsible for safety, health, even though when things go wrong and a body gets assaulted by something that fell from the roof that should have been connected at some point, the decision on what to do with that crush ted will be made by someone other than the commander. i take your point. we are talking about behavior here.
>> i take your point. we are talking about behavior here. >> if they are not seeing that healthily orting that theheir hands and barracks and housing areas are not kept clean, sanitized, all sorts of medical issues breakout in that unit that is a behavior issue, is it not? their responsibility even though medical personnel are making the case of treating the wounded, the victims, or the perpetrators. >> maybe this will help clarify. >> from my experience being in ismand, with the commander
ultimately as possible for everything in his or her unit. ig,have a suite of people, equaloctors, opportunity. you have a bench of technicians that are there to advise and not every act to but he belongs in stovepipes. sometimes the chaplain, the ceo, and the commander has the ability to integrate to, with addressing the issue. they have the purview of their experience and their leadership ability. the even the stovepipe people will not see and all of us get better in the business. the commander is the integrator
of all of that. >> i agree the analogy is not bad fact -- is not exact. decision tog the send that military person to the doctor to begin with? if it is the person themselves, they may not be a doctor but they are saying they need medical help or is the commander , ok,ou are walking around that initial decision will not be necessarily made by a medical voc are. ameone sends someone to doctor and they themselves are not medical. when it is determined you need professional help, the same thing happens here. point,tion going to the
this is also a response about the question raised with medical personnel. having the commander put his or in the perimeter decision to aosecute it is not just technical decision about needing to go to the doctor. statement sending a to all the troops that this behavior on its face is not acceptable and i, as commander, want to make it clear that when this kind of behavior takes place, it has to go to the hospital, it has to be addressed whether it is our legal system message thatf is a to use your,
phrase, the good order of discipline, to morale or ethical standards. am i misunderstanding what you said? lineat is very much in with my opening statement and that is the important thing. if you want to go to other areas , certainly sure troops are reminded by the hospital it's time to come in and have their dental exam, that is one thing. at the commander says i want that exam done on time and you better be green for deployment, it will happen. this has the stamp there. career, i has picked different items that were always problems administratively and you put your thumb print on it and you address on how you have to have a climate with tremendous impact on how that is
addressed with the compliance. they have the command influence behind it. >> thank you. admiral baumgartner, you're making me feel guilty about missing my last dentist appointment. i'm grateful for the freedom. >> if your commander had told you to go, you would have. [laughter] a small question and a bigger question. this is perhaps inappropriately characterized out small, but it goes to why we have this problem now. i'm grateful you are back today, general brady. i'm grateful for everyone who is with us on the phone and in- person. you're not the first group of impressive, accomplished military senior commanders who
have led our force through so many challenges. you said something the last time we heard from you about the nature of the problem and i want to put that down here and ask if this is what you see as the source of the problem today in the armed forces. said, this is the end of your statement, the department of defense needs to realize that we are in the parenting business. while i have the ultimate respect of the young men and women who choose to serve this nation, too often they do not withct the basic humanity 18 years of societies conditioning and some of this is against teamwork, respect, good order, discipline, and ultimately the success of our mission. general, is the problem the people we are getting rather than the military culture itself? problems.ll our
the military did not invent this. we have, in too many cases, and the only good number in this but in too zero -- many cases, we have not done all that we could do, i believe. i hate it when people read my words back to me. that's what i said. [laughter] >> lawyers like to do that. >> that's the story i'm sticking to. ofhink there are lots challenges. when i said about the generation coming in now, i think it's true. research would back that up. that is not in any way excuse our responsibility in the service to take that on. we are doing some parenting we would not have done in past
years. we are having to correct some behaviors that we might not have in former times, perhaps. we must be willing to do that. think the most significant thing that happened in my 41 year career was the increasing role of women in the service. it did incredible things for us. in terms of numbers, you cannot have an all volunteer force without women. not only that, but they bring a civility. i'm old enough to think that men and women are different. they bring a civility to the workplace that was not there when i first came in the service. sometimes i'm bothered when we characterize this that it sometimes get terror to rise does a women's issue.
it's a man's issue because they are the ones doing it by and large. that is the case we have not widely as we must. women are not going to solve this problem. men have to solve this problem and it has to do in an thisization where they say will not happen to wear unit or our sisters. andou do, you deal with us commanders are given the responsibility for good order and discourse. ,f there's a sexual assault someone thinking about sexual assault, i want them to have my picture in their mind thinking they are going to have to deal with this guy if it happens.
>> can i just add something on the societal piece to this issue? i came out of a value space catholic, for generation of west pointers. i found i had joined a values- based institution that was responsible for policing itself and rebuilding the army after the vietnam war. i stayed in the army because it was values-based. comingu find, some are from broken homes, not necessarily the same values i grew up with, but it is incumbent as we bring new members in that we send -- we spend time with respect, dignity, these values we expect to be in our force. whether someone comes into the military for two years, 10 years, 20 years, they will return a better citizen because
of the discipline, leadership, and responsibility we put upon them in the military, i personally believe. opportunity the last few days to sit in the back of the room and i will use the army sharp summit, sexual harassment summit. the most senior army commanders and command sergeant major is in the world came from all over and attended this two day event. of society and the contributing factor was one of the big discussion points. what was refreshing to me from where i sat was a renewed emphasis to the cap where a young soldier is most vulnerable . i will use military grade, from e4, the most
vulnerable. in terms of putting a razor -- a laser beam on what we do and that involvement. if you sit down with them and say, look, this may have been acceptable from where you came, it is no longer acceptable, and to really put the laser on that environment in which they work. it certainly has the attention of the senior the bishop of the army. >> thank you, general. and your larger question? [laughter] the first we have heard on this but you are close to the last. we are close to have to start deciding about some of the many issues that face us in the realm that we are studying. this is really but one of many. on this issue of the convening authority role, i would just cut ifthe chase here and say
commanders as convening authorities can solve this problem and if it is so easy, as general brady has suggested, to remove those who falter and if they are indeed experts in behavior and understand the ways to get them to do right, you've all talked about doing the right said it so many times. i think we need to see the movie. i think you've done a lot of the wrong things in the wrong way in this narrow arena of stopping rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in the armed forces. during the time you've been senior leaders in the forces, why should we not consider this change, whether you consider it technical or far-reaching, of removing convening authorities from the criminal justice process when what we have been
doing has not worked the? >> i would like to add before you answer, a companion question to consider in parallel. what makes me ask the companion question is the media report of collegee house study on campuses. if that report is accurate, i do not vouch for it, but one and five women in college campuses are the victims of sexual assault and 12% of those victims -- 12%, report and 88% do not. the companion message i would raise is why are we not theidering and revamping civilian system of prosecution that we have right now? why are we not removing the authority from senior civilian prosecutors to prosecute cases?
>> i will start to respond there. i yield. >> thank you. i think the answer quite frankly is as leaders, every generation learns how it is changing and that is true for all of us as well and this has been going on for some time. i would argue just the gentleman's comment about learning about what's going on theolleges, but now we have dated. with the data we can take action. for the last few years, we have been extremely focused on trying to ensure that we are in fact eliminating this program -- problem. to ourselves recognize that it is not a broken system
that requires radical surgery. it just needs tuning. you could make the argument that it needs to be done by the administration. the commanders are now well aware of the challenge trying to do what is right to take care of that challenge. , we did nothappen really understand the significance of the problem and that is why people talked about it but really did not grabbing. we are grabbing and running with it now and it's time to take effect. >> admiral. >> i would say a few things in response to that. aboutuld be careful running into a system that does not seem to be working for society in general. otherect there are
numbers to look at this from college campuses especially when you look at the number of males and females and factor in the number of perpetrators and big and so you find out it is probably much worse a problem on college campuses than it is in the military even much worse than when you are just looking at statistics. the second part of the answer is , many inback 10 years society don't understand the problem. notvast majority of men are inclined to be perpetrators and it is hard until it is shoved in your face that there are men out there that do this kind of stuff, that will do it, that you have to come to grips with it. i think it has happened and it has happened over the last five to 10 years in the military and
specifically in the last three or four thanks to a lot of publicity and a lot of help from the outside to come to that significant emotional understanding that your colleagues out there do these kinds of things and you won't necessarily know that because they look to be normal, , and we have passed that understanding and we have it now. we can take that understanding, greater tools, and put them in the hands of commanders with the system that can get things done and focused them on this. there are tweaks that need to be made and have been made to the system that will prevent many of the problems. much more inlish the system because we can meet more of the elements involved.
>> let me make a comment regarding -- i think it's one i made the last time when i was calling him by phone. everybody on every side of this issue has their data. they have their data, their reports, their surveys, etc. i came into the fight directly in the sexual assault response and coordinator program. the first thing we had to do is educate ourselves about the nature of the crime. we did that. to a doctor at boston university, a woman who prosecutor, and they did us educatingor
senior leadership about the nature of this. one thing we learned that the fbi had already known was this was, as they called it, the most unreported crime in america. 12% is not big enough, that's the answer. withf the mantras to begin was we need more reports. we suspect it's happening. we don't know how big it is. it's bigger than we think it is. really need more reports. we worked on it pretty hard for a long time. recently there was a report that on a vastly increased number of reports of sexual .ssault some people took that to think it is worse than we thought it was. you were worse than we thought you were. some of it as taking it -- some
of it was taken as saying people have increased confidence in the chain of command to deal with this so they are coming forward in bigger numbers than they had in the past. can be half empty or half-full full but we wanted more reports. we are not happy that we have them but we are happy in the sense that if there is any good news there, there does appear to be increased confidence. finally, on the accountability if i am a commander and i have referred a case to court martial, i will bird dog that issue. that is in my job. i'm going to follow it and i'm going to know what's happening. i'm going to ask questions about what's happening.
to it being on a court docket. someplace else, commanders, their human nature, are they going to be unconcerned? all commanders have more to do than time to do it. going to get the attention? if it's been shuffled off to a specialist in another chain or if it still part of my job? >> thank you, madam chair. thanks to all of you for coming and those of you on the phone, we appreciate the information you are giving us grapple with this very serious question. i think the admiral raised an issue that is concerning me a lot. what is this concern about a conflict of interest? reason people are raising this is because it is somehow the notion that a commander can
interfere with the process, so if some sexual assault is taking place in his or her command, they can just push it under the rug and they have an interest in doing it. i see someone in the audience nodding their head. that is what i think is at the crux of this concern about conflict of interest. a commander is going to have an interest in not reseeding with the prosecution of sexual assault and will be able to squelch it. could you please address that? be commander squelch it? can they interfere with the interfere with the prosecution? can they push this under the rug? >> if you are not very smart. i don't know what rock you have been living under if you can think you can hide anyone from anybody as a commander.
congress, bless their hearts, can get any e-mails they want. we live in a glass house. it's a trite phrase, but it's absolutely true. if you are in any position of authority in 2014 emma there are -- in 2000 14? there are some young soldiers, airmen, you use your card to do that and you will be held off of the brigadier general list. you cannot do anything. one of my mentors says we've signed an unlimited liability clause.
we accept that. that's the way it ought to be. i don't think we can. you will be found out and you should be if you are subverting the process. is this notion that there is this a good old boy network that would allow people to sweep it under the rug but my experience is that does not exist. in this day and age, the consequence of trying to do that are much worse than during the right thing for the right reason. >> devastating. >> does the commander control the investigation. >> no. >> no. no. >> kenny commander stopped the investigation -- can the commander stop? >> i suppose you could, but under what justification? no. >> no. >> it would be a great peril if
you tried to do that. i cannot speak for all of the iser services but there transparency to other places on what they are doing. other people know what investigations are happening. they are monitored so that a few squelched an investigation, it would not be very long before the highest levels new that you had squelched it. >> in the army, because it is an independent investigative arm, commanders do not have the authority to interfere in an investigation. been at the most senior levels of the air force sitting with the chief and he would routinely ask our senior howardy for the ig investigation is going and all he was asking about was the
timeframe. he was just seeing if you were close to being through? how you're doing? no commander getshas any awareness involved in the investigation process once they launch it. >> this is ralph jodice on the phone, if i could add? commanders cannot squelch those types of things. experience,personal there were allegations against my senior enlisted advisor. folks came to me and presented me with their fact and i launched a commander-directed.
if i had squelched of that, all of the other people in the unit would have known. we've all talked about good organization. rug had swept it under the it would have torn it apart. as a commander, you owe that answer to everybody. to the victim and to those that are making the allegations. you cannot squelch it. the responsibility of the command does not allow you to do that. we would not take command so seriously to push it away. we of that answer to everybody. to ensure that, if there is a problem, we take care of it and we make the right decision. the decision might be a significant punishment for the
individual, a loss of rank, even imprisonment. i do not see that squelching -- it does absolutely no good. it is detrimental to any organization. you have got to find the right answer, no matter how hard it is. you've got to find the right answer so that everybody knows when the decision is made that the right thing has been done. some people might disagree along the way. as a commander, you know that you have done that and you have gone into it and poured over the report that is presented to you. you have taken all of the experience you have, the advice from your legal advisor, from deputy commander and others, and
you know you have made the right >> this is based on what i have for the last few days -- is that there are so many mechanisms in place that the moment of victim steps forward and says, something bad has happened, that a commander, at great peril to his or her professional career, if they do not report that within hours, than they might use a chance to command that unit. special victims councils, they track this. they track down to the hour that this is being done. i cannot imagine a scenario in which a commander will say, let's squelch this. it ain't going to happen. >> do you have anything else? >> no. >> thank you. >> it is going to build on something you have all got to. one of the other perceptions besides the conflict of interest issue that there is a concern
about -- the other concern -- the other reason to give it to the judge advocates and take it away to the commander -- from the commander is that they are not trained to do this. all of you have left the military, most within the last 24 months. general campbell, you are a bit more removed. you currently work with the chief of staff on the army on development of our general officers. a comment that was made this morning -- manners are rarely trained to exercise informed judgment on cases. the problems have been there. we are learning from the past still. can you comment on the current training for our senior leaders
to make informed judgments, if you believe they can make that, and what are we doing to keep that current? in terms of information that is constantly being developed? >> i will argue that you are probably correct. the commanders early on did not get much experience early on -- but i would not say that as a reason to take it away from them. commanders will come on board a ship, in my case, and being command and start gaining experience -- having to hold article 15's. they have the legal ability to reach back and get advice. through that article 15 experience they begin to
understand how this process works and what the commander is so important to making sure that fair and consistent judgments are happening for each and every case. for me, my objective was zero article 15's. i was very naïve and optimistic. by the time i ended my command tour, i had 60 cases. i gained a tremendous amount of experience through that. as you continue to escalate through command, that experience gets broadened. the new becoming convening authority. you are being advised by very professional people who understand and have more
experience. what you are not necessarily trained, you are getting training through that experience. how to balance plea-bargaining, the charges, with what you want to see come out of that -- in the best way for the victims in the accused. that is what i would say. in response to your question about training now, we have recognized that there is a need to ensure that. in the navy, we have moved most of our general quarter marshals to the regional commanders so that they can continue to build this body of experience. they do go through training when there's -- they are assigned regional commanders to make sure they're ready for that position. >> is that legal -- is that specific legal training on what the man counter? >> -- they may encounter?
>> yes. trained specifically by our jag core. this is not new. they have probably anywhere between 7-10 years of experience in this arena. it is the jag making sure that they fully understand new general court-martial on what the authority brings. >> as we go through and become commanders at different levels, at least in the air force, we go through different types of commanding courses. in every one of those, even as a flag officer, legal courses or legal advice, legal presentations, are done in every one of those courses.
i would venture to say that those are increasing even more and more. in my particular situation, when i took over as commander of the air force in washington and had a court-martial convening authority -- over 40,000 airmen located around the world -- i spent the time and sat down with my jag to ensure that i knew what it was that i could and could not do, was expected. there were cases i was looking at all the time, including prison sentences, and everyone one of those cases and situations, jag is right there with us. i believe we are doing way more training today than we have in the past.
like the admiral said, there needs to be a little bit of time. i know there is not much. i believe that all commanders know that the need to have that guidance because they are not legal experts. the need to stay close when they're making these tough and difficult decisions that affect people's lives. >> i think that all of the services have specific -- first of all, just officer development courses come on your second lieutenant all the way up, you get some legal information. as you become commanders, i think all of the services of a specific school for you for every level of command.
certainly, things like the legal aspects of command probably receive as much or more emphasis than anything else. but you do not like to be a commander in a classroom. where you learn it -- i learned from lawyers who were normally half my age -- because every week we had a session called cops and robbers. you discussed every case going on on the installation. your law enforcement people were there. the attorneys were there. for me, that is where i learned about what was appropriate and what was not appropriate -- what could and should be done along the way. by the time you are a senior guy or gal, you have had a lot of experience with the legal business. you are not a legal expert. you never run out of the need for an attorney, but you probably spend as much time with your attorney as you do with anyone else.
that was my experience. >> general? >> if i could add, ma'am? >> sure. general campbell? >> the training a general officer receives is very individualized. if a young man or woman is select the to become a brigadier general and a command position they go to our staff judge advocate school in charlottesville. i just talked to a young man who had gone through than the other day and how impressed he was that they took the time to do that for him. at each of our precommands it's a very important part. i suppose you could say the tanger of that ssh -- danger of that is you come out thinking i know about that. one of the good rules i have is
if you feel real glib, ask your lawyer. i tried to follow that as best i could. >> ms. fernandez? >> i have a pretty stark question. think admiral balmgarden you skid that a lot of change has happened in the last two or three years. let's say the threat of, you know, taking the commander out of the process goes away, just goes away. we've heard a lot of testimony that that has gotten a lot of the change moving, the threat of taking the commander out. once that threat is gone, are all these changes and trainings and resources that have been put toward this problem going to go away? and i, that always lies in the back of my mind, is if this panel reports out that we're going to leave the commander
just where he or she is, that then we're going to stop looking at this problem as much as we've been looking at it for the last two or three years. >> well, i would say my guess would be that if attention faded from this problem and progress wasn't made, that i think the services are all well aware that legislation could be introduced in five years, and if nothing has happened or it hasn't improved in five years or gotten worse in five years it would be a very short conversation at that point in time. i think the services are all well aware that any progress that's made has to be sustained. otherwise this is still an issue, still a threat and it doesn't need all of this process to go forward in the future. if the services get what they ask for but don't deliver. >> i think that's an important question. and my answer would be, i
certainly hope not. but this one thing, i mentioned it in an earlier panel, we really need better data, and o.s.d. can force that. the services won't do it. i mean they'll all do it differently. we really do need some better data. everybody's got their own sat -- set of facts, and none of them match up. but o.s.d. needs to drive c.i.d., o.i.s., n.c.i.s., all the attorneys, commander, they need to collect-force the services to provide the same data, the same answers to the same questions asked the same way so that we know what we're talking about to the degree that we can. there's always going to be a little murkyness because of the nature of the crime and the nature of reporting, but we can get better -- we can deal with
a better set of facts if we were a little more standardized and i think that would be in my opinion an important recommendation for your panel for something that o.s.d. needs to drive so that we know what we're talking about. >> general, i would say that we shouldn't need a threat to fix this problem, far -- for starters. i would also say that below the senior level people don't know that they maybe could lose that authority. for the general population at large. but i think what you are seeing is people are doing all the right things for the right reasons because we understand the problem bert and know we have to get after it. and i think the measure and focus that congress has put on it and that this panel is bringing to it has gotd to bring attention. they know that we have to get after this. when i think back, the integration of blacks into the army, the integration of women
into the army, don't ask don't tell going out the door, who led those transformations? it was the military. it was the leaders in the military, the commanders in the military. and we can lead this as well and we need to lead this so we need to lead the -- be the model tore -- doctor -- for society, for industry, for ones that have a bigger challenge than they are. but we need to dig our heels in and get after it and i believe the chain of command can do that. >> go ahead. thank you. >> i would say in answer to your question, the answer is i do not think so and it's because unfortunately i don't ever see this problem going away. the case study would be we look at our drug problem. we recognized that drug problem back in the early 1980's. we took very effective action,
trong urinals -- urnal iciss program and we still have the problem today. this hink we will see problem continue ton exist and we will have to continue to treat it and do everything we're doing today. >> anything further? >> all right. then i think with our thanks, everyone, we're going to adourn -- adjourn this panel now. and i can't thank you enough for coming the thank you. we'll be in recess for lunch the >> turning now to new jersey, an article from the new york sometimes -- "new york times" saying that an ex-port official is saying that governor christie knew about the lane closings. the former official says he personally oversaw the lane closings on the george
washington bridge and that evidence exists that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, contrary to what he stated publicly in a two-hour press conference. -- ny read more at y "times".com. and more tonight in the state of the state addresses. new mexico, illinois, nebraska, and south dakota. you can see them on our companion network. nd earlier, according to a former deputy national security security advisor, the sochi games are the most dangerous since intercontinental. here's what of -- some of what he had to say. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fellowship fellowship. u.s. security and potential response
to threats. it is >> i think it's fair to say not standpoint but certainly an objective standpoint that these from everything we know are the most dangerous games since 9/11. nd gl of the opportunities various groups gordon laid out have in terms of this game. let me lay out how the u.s. might view this and why i suggested the most dangerous context of the olympic games since 9/11. in the first instance the u.s. used the terrorist threat as serious, that is defined by the intent of the groups that could threaten the games, the capability of those groups and the opportunity. let me go through that simply and quickly because that is how the intelligence community and
the policy community thinks about and categorizes threats and in this context makes very clear why it is that the u.s. is concerned with threats. first you have the declared intent of groups to disrupt the olympics. it is clear, from the senior most readership of the various groups, the caucusus emirates in particular, doku umarov, significant and important the july of 2013 statement is not just a call for attacks from the games and massive disruption but the lifting of the moratorium on attacks on civilian targets which is in essence a call to arms and an opening of the targets around the sochi olympics and not just the venues but also the transportation hubs and other venues that are potentially vulnerable and the site of soft targets.
in terms of capabilities we have obviously seen over the last decade the ability of a variety of groups to hit not just in the caucusus but in the russian heartland with not just efficiency but great devastation. we saw this in boca grande -- l --bulgagrad and the description in the report is you have these groups that are not only motivated and have the intent but have practiced the capabilities and mastered a variety of vectors to attack. that is to say these are groups that don't just specify, these the groups that can plan a variety of ways to attack secured site and unsecured sites. you have seen this with singular suicide bombers, coordinated attacks, truck bombs and bus
bombs and the use of multiple militants in targeted assaults and you have seen their willingness and ability over the course of the last decade to attack all sorts of venues that are vulnerable, transportation hubs, metro attacks and the rail line attacks, you have seen a tax on schools, security, police stations, hospitals, so these are groups that not only have the intent demonstrated capability to attack and that was just some of is the conversation from earlier today. you can watch it in its entirety later on any time at c-span.org. also tonight, a conversation
with the president of the mayo clinic, dr. john noseworthy. he -- we'll have that tonight at 9:20 earn time here c-span. we are very focused on the sochi olympics and we have seen an uptick in the threat reporting regarding sochi. >> the leader of that group last juble announced in a public message that the group would intend to carry out attacks in sochi in connection with the olympics and we've seen a number of attacks stemming from last fall, suicide bombings in volgograd that took a number of lives. the terrorists are backing -- becoming more sophisticated on
ey're going to school on the disclosures and leaks so it makes it much more difficult to find them and address the threats they pose the so when i look at the threats relative to 9/11, we as a country i think have done a great job addressing some of 9 vulnerabilities that visit in -- exist in our system and putting together information-sharing architecture but you never know what you don't know. >> the president obama built -- the problem. -- probability of attack now relative to 2001 is a very difficult one to answer because of the very dispersion and different fugse of the threat. whereas we were very, very focused initially in that time period on al qaeda, the al qaeda core, now we are facing a much more dispersed threat. >> this weekend on c-span, the
nation's top intelligence chiefs on worldwide security threats. sunday on c-span 2, your calls and comments for professor bonnie morris. that's at noon on booktv. and on c-span 2, american history tv. tour the confederate winter quarters of a south carolina general. sunday at 7:00. >> and on sunday morning, president obama's state of the union address from tuesday followed by the republican response from conference chair kathy mcmorris rodgers. we'll have that here on c-span at 10:35 earn. earlier today the robert wood johnson foundation took a look at state health insurance exchanges with a panel of officials who say running the process has been challenging but largely successful. they talked for about an hour
and 20 monies -- minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] . good morning and welcome to our robert wood johnson foundation spons earned health reporters roundtable. today our topic is where are we now. the state of health insurance exchanges and enrollment. i'm susan dentzer. i want to introduce some of my foundation colleagues who are here today. cathy hem stead in the front row here. her colleague brett thompson who runs communication for our coverage team. and both of them will be available at the end of the briefing today also to answer any questions. today marks the end of the first full month, the 123rd day to be exact, not that anybody's counting, of the health insurance marketplaces or the exchanges. as we all know, the start-up
phase was very rocky for the federal marketplace. healthcare.gov. and for some of the state marketplaces. on the other hand, other state marketplaces fared much better. and in the aggregate of course the big picture is it now appears that millions of people have successfully signed up, either for private health insurance coverage, for medicaid or the children's health insurance program through the exchanges. today, we've gathered five people who have worked closely with some of the most successful state exchanges to report on their experience. none of these exchanges were without glitches. on the other hand, many things worked. and we're going to hear about both the challenges and the successes. we've asked all of our speakers to bring us up to date on the enrollment. what outreach strategies worked. and which didn't work so well. and what they foresee between
now and the end of open enrollment period on march 31st. as well as what plans they're making for open enrollment next year which, believe it or not, is only nine short months away. so let me introduce our speakers now. first of all, heather howard is with us. she's the program director of the state health reform assistance network. that's a program funded by the robert wood johnson foundation. and it's dedicated to providing technical assistance to states. she's also a public affairs lecture ur at the woodrow wilson school at princeton university and faculty affiliatety center for health and well being. previously served as commissioner of the new jersey department of health and senior services and worked before that in the u.s. senate, the house of representatives, the domestic policy council at the white house and the health care task force at the antitrust division at the u.s. justice department. we're also delighted to have
with us audrey heinoanes. she previously served as the senior vice president and chief government affairs officer for the ymca of the usa in washington, d.c. and then governor steve ba sheer who of course you saw at the state of the union address the other night appointed her to the kentucky cabinet, the cabinet and her office oversees the kentucky exchange. hanes served in the clinton administration previously as deputy assistant to the president and director of the office for women's initiatives and outreach. also with us, we're happy to say, is christine ferguson. she's the director of the rhode island health benefits exchange. previously, she spent close to eight years as a research professor at the george washington university school of public health and services. she also has served as commissioner of the massachusetts department of public health. as the director of the rhode island department of human
services. and formerly as counsel and deputy chief of staff to the late u.s. senator jon chaffee of rhode island. so we're very happy to have christy with us as well. mili kaufman also has joined us. she's the executive corredirect the d.c. health benefit exchange authority. and served as the superintendant of insurance of the state of maine from 2008 to 2011. she also has served in key leadership positions at the national association of insurance commissioners and was formerly an associate research professor and project director at the georgetown university health policy institute. and joining us on the line by phone from california we're happy to have peter lee who's the executive director of covered california, a sacramento-based insurance exchange and these states insurance exchange for small businesses. he formerly served as the deputy director of the center for
medicare and medicaid innovation at cms where he helped shape initiatives to implement higher quality care at lower costs. he also served as the director of delivery system reform at the federal health and human services offices of health reform and before that was the ceo of the pacific business group on health and executive director of the center for health care rights. so welcome to all of you. we're going to start with an overview from heather howard, setting the stage for what we have seen to date in the state-based health insurance exchanges. so health, welcome. >> thank you. thank you susan. thank you to the robert wood johnson foundation for your work on expanding coverage. i have a few slides to talk about some of the key takeaways. so what are we seeing?
despite the rocky start, we've seen that enrollment in state based marketplaces is generally outpacing the enrollment in thor if fed really facilitated marketplace states. it's also because we're seeing far more robust consumer assistance and marketing efforts. and really important also is seamless eligibility between the marketplaces and medicaid. it's worth noting too there is a success story in five states. this is just early on that have been doing what we call fast track expedited enrollment for snap beneficiaries. that's food stamp beneficiaries into medicaid. oregon, despite their ongoing exchange implementation challenges, have been able to enroll 121,000 people into medicaid through that fast track enrollment. but also we're seeing that plan choice varies by state level across the state-based exchanges and we'll hear from our friends
here today about what it locks like in their states. overall, we're seeing that 80% are choosing silver or higher level. and that age distribution also varies. overall, 24% of the enrollees are in the 18 to 34 age range, that coveted age range. consumer assistance varies. one really important distinct between the state-based exchanges and the federally facilitated marketplace states is active robust consumer assistance. this chart demonstrates how much more funding. we know how important it is, given the general consumer confusion about their options. as people are learning more and more, the state-based marketplaces have more and more resources to get the word out. also the consumer assistance partnership states. which are also receiving funding from the federal government for outreach. now, we've seen these early successes.
there are challenges. first up are the systems failures. some vendors have not been able to deliver. states have struggled with the i. i.t. implementations. those audits are really prompting decisions about whether and how to salvage what they've built thus far or whether to start over. it really demonstrates a commitment from the states to system repair and enhancement. i think that suggests that ultimately those state-based exchanges will be successful over time. there have been significant investments in i.t. if they can salvage or repair, they will be successful. not only their system failures but states have figured out work arounds. as states tend to be good at doing. first, paper processing. and then in several states, states have been pursuing policy options to allow people to keep their previous coverage options during this transitional period. so while we've had some rocky
starts in some states, states have been looking at transitional patches to allow people to keep their coverage. and of course it's very important to make sure we're effectuating the enrollment in the coverage. we're seeing that's getting better day by day. today, there was some good reports out about how many people have -- were paying their premiums. but something that's been a real focus for state-based marketplaces is effectuating that coverage and making sure they're able to transfer that data back to the carriers about enrollment and about payment to make sure that coverage is effectuated. overall, very promising news from the state-based marketplaces. as we look forward. and promising enrollment data. which we know we're going to be hearing more today. so thank you. i'm going to turn it over to audrey. >> thank you, heather. and of course i'm very pleased
to be here. thanks to the robert wood johnson foundation for hosting the event this morning. so i know folks have heard a lot about kentucky. which we're really pleased about. as you all know, our governor is really pleased about it. so this is sort of a little bit short version of our story. in kentucky, there were 640,000 uninsured in a state that's just over 4 million. we have about 300 -- it's actually the exact number is 308,000 that we expected to qualify for medicaid under the new eligibility rules when we expanded medicaid. and about 290,000 we anticipated to qualify for premium assistance through the exchange. the way it happened in kentucky is the governor signed an executive order which created
the exchange and its administrative structure. it is organized in my cabinet, the cabinet for health and family services. i want to mention this just a little bit. we find that this is -- has been part of what we call the secret sauce, i suppose. in my cabinet, you have the department for medicaid services. you have the department for community based services which has been doing all the eligibility for medicaid and also provides food stamps and the snap programs. snap benefits and child care, that sort of, those programs. also in our cabinet is the department for public health and department for behavioral health. our office of health policy. just to mention a few of the major departments. we think this is rather significant because it -- we haven't had many of the structural barriers you would think, well, everyone works for
one big administration it shouldn't be a problem. but we all know that sometimes organizational structures do get in the way. they become barriers. also, because medicaid is in the cabinet, and they work so closely and did work so closely with the exchange, we also have a really experienced i.t. department. anyone knows that medicaid has to have a pretty super i.t. department that supports it. but so do the other departments within our cabinet. so we had a lot of experience within the cabinet at bringing up very large i.t. structures. and then we also had a really great vendor in deloitte consulting that truly sent their "a" team to the game with us. we established an advisory board. our advisory board was made up of all the stakeholders. as i'm sure it happened in the
other states as well. one of the stakeholders, i want to point out, it's had varying degrees of success in other places around the country. the insurance agents have been really, really involved in kentucky. and we have over 2,000 agents that have become certified on the exchange and are helping both small business as well as individuals get signed up. and clearly they -- even though they still of course receive an insurance commission, when they help people sign up for medicaid and helped walk them through, they don't get anything for that. and so a lot of the insurance agents that are in lower income neighborhoods and communities where a lot of people that are uninsured would qualify for medicaid versus one of our qualified health plans, they have been really terrific in helping them as well. and of course we have what we call connectors. those are navigators.
to help as well all around the state. our exchange is known as connect, kentucky's health care connection. so why did we decide to do it? it's not something we're proud of but we're about the 44th sickest state in the country. and if that's not reason enough, then i'm not sure what is. because we all know that both education and health are such important building blocks for a state's economic development opportunities that are afforded to them. 50th in smoking. 41st in diabetes. 48th in poor mental health days. 49th in poor physical health days. 50th in cancer deaths. 49th in cardiac heart disease. 43rd in high cholesterol. 48th in heart attacks.
and 44th in annual dental visits. not something that any of us in our state would be proud of. certainly not something that if you were serving as governor, secretary of the cabinet for health and human services, you would be proud of. kynect and the affordable care act provided us tremendous opportunity. really an historic opportunity to begin to take advantage of the law and turn this around. our health statistics, we believe, could actually get worse before they get better. at least the reporting. the reason we say that is because there's going to be such a high demand for screening and so many people that have gone without insurance for so long. we actually think there's going to be possibly a lot of chronic diseases that are diagnosed that have just frankly gone undiagnosed and unreported. so we're trying to get everyone to brace for the fact that, you know, we could go down a little bit before we go up. but we know that ultimately we will be heading into the right
direction. so what are enrollment statistics? these are as of monday. i have new statistics hot off the press this morning. i think when you'll give them to you, it will probably give you some idea of how quickly, how our enrollment, daily enrollment has really picked up. for example, we, as of this morning, we have 195,502 enrolled in health care coverage through kynect. you can see what it was at the first of the week. we had 148,837 that have qualified for medicaid. that's about 76.1% of the overall enrollment. it started out as about 70% of the enrollment was medicaid. it's gone to -- or 80%.
it went to 70%. now it's suddenly at about 75% of the enrollment as medicaid. we have 44,160 individuals that have enrolled in a qualified health plan. 54,094 have been found eligible for a subsidy to purchase a plan. and some have just not yet chosen that. we have 647,186 folks that have conducted a preliminary screening. and our call center reported this morning 456,950 calls that have been answered. we've had just under 1 million unique visitors to our site. the other number that's not up here that we're very, very proud of in kentucky is we have 1,471 small businesses that have begun
applications and about half, 548, have now completed them for their employees. clearly, all numbers that in our state we're really proud of. and here's our cute little -- cute little call center person. and our number. so i'm happy to answer questions and turn it over to christine. >> thanks so much. i'm really happy to be here today to represent the leadership in the smallest state in the union. you're going to have the largest state in the union at the end. on behalf of our leadership, governor chafee, lieutenant general roberts, legislative
leadership in rhode island and my colleagues in the cabinet. we really like the idea of being the smallest state in the union and in the top two best exchanges in the country. in terms of our enrollment and beating our targets. likewise, we have similar statistics of the other states in the context of making our way through the uninsured. we're about a third of the way, moving up into half of the way in medicaid of new enrollees. and in the number of ininsured in the state with the tax credit. i want to talk a little bit about lessons learned. the numbers have been all over the paper. everybody's focused on enrollment, enrollment, enrollment. there are some lessons we learned. there is some really important steps forward we need to take.
there are going to be lessons learned at the federal level and state level. and there should be. number one is this kind of massive i.t. build and the implications of that. i think the difference in how we approach it has to be reflected on. we have to rethink at the government side how we do these things. for us in rhode island, we've been very fortunate. our system's working really well. we're moving to system stabilization as opposed to -- as opposed to fixing -- we're fixing, but as opposed to having to redo. that issue is the core of all of our businesses. it's essential lesson learned. it's essential cooperation
between state departments and state agencies and quasipublics and the state leadership. if you tonigdon't have it, it's difficult to make sure you accomplish your goals. third, there are really fundamental problems in the basic law of the aca that need to be cleaned up. if we don't clean them up in the next year or so, there are going to be ramifications for that. they relate to implementation of the law. they tie everybody's hands because we can't get agreement on moving forward. we need to move forward and fix the things that need to be fixed. the problems in the launch at the federal level scared away a lot of early adopters, particularly in the business community. that's not a good thing. the federal government has done a great job recovering and they're moving forward really
well. but we have to acknowledge that there was some damage done in the context of the marketing and outreach. and that marketing and outreach piece has to be addressed. and we have to redouble efforts in that area. it is real private sector kind of customer service that we need to provide. because we're providing services to a range of people. you've got the medicaid population. you've got middle income and upper income individuals getting tax credits or buying as 100% of the cost. and then you have small businesses. essential that we look at those customer service pieces. the investment in marketing from a government view of the world, that's a very different thing than the way the private sector looks at marketing.
and investment in sales. and i know that's not always the best word but the truth is that is what's happening now. so we do need to rethink how we look at and invest in those kinds of components. the small business for the future. small business focus is essential. employee choice for small business. as we're doing in rhode island and many of the other -- my colleagues here and other states are moving toward. the way that change is going to happen, it's not just reducing the number of uninsured, it's also managing costs and looking at outcomes. small business is essential in that component. and we really need to understand what they want and how to provide the kind of data and information that their employees need to make decisions.
finally, this is the most important investment in health care that's made in 70 years. i've been at this for 30. which is way longer than i ever thought i'd be at it. this is it. if we don't take this opportunity to invest in looking at what the data and the outcomes are in addition to enrollment on cost, on quality, if we don't provide consumers with a transparency and businesses with a transparency of how insurance works, how do make decisions, it doesn't have to be as complicated as it's been. we can break it down, unpack it and provide people with information so they can make better decisions. not only when they enroll in the health plan but also when they're making provider decisions. providers will finally have the tools. if we do this right with the data. providers will have the tools to push back and start redesigning
more from the bottom up how payments need to be changed and how they can practice medicine and work with consumers in the way that they've wanted to, which is holistically. so at the end of the day, if we can't all stand up here in a couple of years and talk to you about what the outcomes were on worker productivity, health care, health care outcomes, and costs, if we can't do that, coverage is only one piece. the american people want to know where the investment went and they want to know what they got for that investment. we need the data analytics to make sure they get those answers. thanks very much.
>> good morning, everyone. can you hear me? great. so my name is knemila kofman. it's been almost a year since i've been in my current job. i want to start off by saying if it wasn't early on for the rwj foundation helping me get some support, consulting support, i would not be part of the success story. i was the first employee hired. i had one more employee working with me the first month. and the foundation stepped in to help. so thank you so much to the foundation. and thank you for having me here today. october 1 was a great day for d.c. health link.com. bloomberg news that day was reporting we were one of four states, one of four jurisdictions that was open on time and state opened and
consumers were able to do everything from start to finish. shop for health plan options. make health plan selection. hit the invoice me button. that was a great day. it is still a great day, every day for d.c. health link.com. you probably know we have full functionality on the shop side, which is the marketplace for small businesses. and we have full functionality for the individual side. we're very proud. in fact, we were the marketplace selected by opm for elected officials in congress as well as congressional staff to have their job based coverage. in december we also enrolled the president, so i thank him for his business as well. we have broad insurance company choices and product choices on
the individual side. we have 34 products on the small group side. we have 267 different products. and we all have -- and we also have all of the major insurance companies participating. etna care, first blue cross blue shield, kaiser permanente as well as united on the group side. i want to skip through the group slides. i wanted you all to have them to give you a sense of where the product offerings are. both on the individual and small group side. i want to talk briefly about employer and employee choice. this is something that christy mentioned earlier. how important it is for us to not only focus on the individual side of things, but also on our small business clients. from day one, we were -- d.c. health link.com, we were able to offer small businesses the types of choices they do not have currently in the commercial marketplace before we opened for
business. in fact, now small businesses essentially have the purchasing power of large employers and can offer their employees the types of choices that were only available to large employers in the past. so a small business getting coverage through d.c. health link.com can choose a level. and then the employees all have the carriers, all the products, hmos, ppos, zero deductible, and a particular meta level. that's a type of option that never existed before. or the small business can choose one carrier and allow the employees to choose the different benefit levels. i also included some slides for you to show you a range of prices. i just want to note that the prices are very competitive in the district. in fact, if you're a 27-year-old person, you can get a policy for
$124 a month. with one of the largest carriers. if you're 55, you can get a policy for a little under $300 a month. so very affordable coverage. i also included the range for the shop side for you, which i'm not going to go through. but i think it's interesting to see where the pricings are in the marketplace. i do want to focus a whole lot on our experience with enrollment and also share some challenges and lessons learned with you. so as of january 10th, and we release data on a monthly basis. in a couple weeks, we'll release more updated information. and we do that for a number of reas reasons, including the fact we've seen movement in when coverage becomes effective for a particular enrollee. so what we found initially is
some people wanted january 1st coverage but online they signed up for february 1st coverage and what we've been doing is we've been accommodating consumers who wanted the earlier start date. so if we release numbers on a weekly basis, the numbers wouldn't be accurate in terms of who enrolled for january 1st coverage, how many people enrolled for february 1st coverage, et cetera. so the monthly release time for us works better in being able to provide all of you with more accurate data on the enrollment in d.c. so as of january 10th, we had over 20,000 people enrolled. that includes both the shop side and the congressional enrollment on the shop side. it also includes individuals and families enrolling in the individual marketplace, in private qualified health plans, as well as enrolling through dchealthlink.com into medicaid.
i have to tell you that exceeded all of my expectations. d.c. has one of the lowest uninsured rates in the nation. over the years, we've done a whole lot to expand coverage options for our residents and small businesses. and when we started this, the old census data showed we had about 42,000 uninsured people in the district. we have more updated information and the most current information on uninsured shows we had about 35,000 uninsured. the district expanded medicaid right away, after the affordable care act was enacted. and people with up to 200% of federal poverty level income qualify for medicaid. so we believe huge drop in the uninsured rate is a result of
the early medicaid expansion. so when we started to look at our goals and tried to figure out how many people we can enroll in year one, our numbers from the start were a lot lower than kentucky, i have to say. but i thought, with my team, i thought, let's try to hit the target of 5,000 in the first three months before december 31st. that was a kind of target for us to set and still be realistic. in the first three months, we exceeded that target. we had 1,000 people sign up for february 1st coverage. and we were able to get 4,600, almost 4,700 people enrolled into medicaid. in the first three months, we
exceeded our goal by a whole lot. and then we had almost 12,000 enrollees in the shop. and the numbers -- i just want to note for all of you. the numbers in the next week or so that we'll be releasing will include enrollment by effective date for january, february, as well as march. so you'll have that breakdown once we release that. another interesting aspect of our enrollment is who we're enrolling. we can show you by age, categories, our highest enrollment by age is the age group of 26 to 34-year-olds. and some of you know that the largest percentage of our uninsured, in fact, 60% of our uninsured population is under the age of 40. so right from the start we were very focused on the younger
members of our community. and we have a success story to tell when it comes to enrolling those younger members. we did some creative outreach. in fact, we have youth enrollment leadership council that advises us. which are folks on the ground who help people with enrollment. they're young and provide us with creative ideas. so we've done outreach event s t dance clubs, bars, at air jordan when the sneakers were -- when there were lines outside the stores with young people try to buy the air jordan sneakers. we were out there trying to educate and enroll those people. midnight snacks at denny's. we were there trying to educate
and enroll and our numbers on the younger age groups definitely show that. we do have a few events planned for valentine's day, as well as youth enrollment day in the middle of february, we'll be in ice rinks and doing all sorts of things with the younger population. i want to talk a little bit about one of the challenges we've seen. that is the act population. people who don't qualify for medicaid but qualify for tax credits. i've been very disappointed in how many people have been enrolling. most of our enrollment in fact is full price coverage on the private side. about a third of those individuals we've determined to qualify for tax credits enrolled. so we are trying to engage in a new strategy in how to enroll
the rest. once we tell you you are eligible for premium reduction, why is it that you're not selecting your health plan? so my team and i are reshifting gear, to try to be more strategic. we've lined up partnerships with tax centers around the city that provide tax advice during tax season. and we're going to have brokers as well as imperson sisters there to help get those people enrolled as well. we think that kind of targeted strategy will help us a whole lot to reach the population that qualifies for tax credits but are for whatever reason not enrolling. i also want to briefly talk about some of the i.t. challenges. we are in the find and improve mode. and adding new functionality all the time. and by that i mean we discovered
that our system wasn't built to include a feature that allows you to reset your own user name. we found that 60% -- more than 60% of the calls to our call center was consumers who forgot their user name and needed us to reset it. and initially our i.t. folks were handling that and so a consumer unfortunately would have to call back several timings times to get that done. which was making the wait times for the call center longer. and it's an inconvenience to a consumer. i know myself, i want it instantly. so we added that feature recently. so now a consumer can avoid calling our call center and can reset their own user name. so that's the mode that we're in. we're learning a lot of lessons from our users, from our customers. we have feedback, very good feedback from them. whether a consumer has a good experience or less than positive
experience. we take all of those lessons and we focus our i.t. strategy to always making the consumer experience better. i'm going to close by saying i do think i focus most of my remarks here on what's happening now and today's and yesterday's emergencies and focus. this is going to take time. it's not an overnight sensation, right? this is the most fundamental effort to make sure that all americans, all people who live and work in the u.s. have access to high-quality affordable coverage. it took us a long time to get 40 million uninsured. it took us a long time to get to the reason for personal
bankruptcies being a medical condition. it took us a long time to get to this irrational system of health care financing and delivery. and it's going to take us a little bit of time to get ourselves on a better path. to a path where the way we finance medical care is sustainable for all of us. not just as individuals but the nation as a whole. so i asked the reporters here to keep that in mind and the public who is thinking about enrolling. if they're in a state that is not a success story like us, give the site, give the federal government another chance. we are all in this to improve everyone's lives, everyone's health. and to make sure that over the long term, people have access to the medical care that they need and the kind of financial security that families need.
we are committed to all of you. we will work day and night to make sure every single person gets the kind of coverage they need. thank you. >> thank you very much. now we're going to hear from peter lee of cover california. peter, welcome. >> great. good morning, great to be joining you and my colleagues from across the nation. i'm going to try to hit quickly the major points that susan queued up at the beginning and run through them. a lot of my points will echo remarks you've heard from rhode island, kentucky, district of columbia. first, how are we doing? partway through, we're now two-thirds of the way through open enrollment. we have a lot of data on the first three months and some on the last couple weeks. how we're doing is we have a lot of interest and a lot of enrollment. so in california, we've seen
about 1.1 million people enroll. newly eligible in medical, about 600,000. or in cover california's exchange products, about 500,000. of our enrollment in the covered california exchange, we've actually seen 85% of them being subsidy eligible. 15% not eligible for subsidies. but, remember, a lot of people don't need to shop in our exchanges if they are getting a subsidy and we don't care where they shop. we'll look forward to sharing data on off exchange enrollment in february. because that's one of the stories that isn't really being talked about. is that the enrollment in coverage where americans are benefiting from guaranteed issued coverage, are benefiting from essential benefits, though not buying directly through an exchange. couple other things on the numbers. then talk about what they mean.
is trends. so california's obviously a big state. on the marketplace side of enrollment, in the month of october, 30,000 people enrolled. november about 80,000. december, 400,000 people enrolled. importantly though, the momentum hasn't stopped there. in the first two weeks of january, an additional 125,000 people selected covered plans. that means in the first two weeks of january, we saw more enrollment than we saw in the first two months of open enrollment. that's good news. so what's that mean in terms of what's working? we think we've generally done a good job getting the word out. people know that covered california is there. when we look at who is enrolling, we're seeing in many areas a good mix across the state. but in some areas, we think we
have challenges. we enrolled in terms of proportion to those who are subsidy eligible. they're about 50% of our target. essential here in california. in some regions of the state, we're doing very well relative to some base projections. where three months in we've surpassed the base projections of what the entire open enrollment would be. areas like orange county, san diego, bay area. in other areas, we aren't enrolling as strongly. the inlet empire. central valley. so what this means is we've actually pivoted right out of the gate to say what can we do to adjust our strategies now? and the two things i point to there is first, like i think many of the states, as well as things have gone, there's some
areas where we have not provided the best service that we'd want to. some of this has been because of a much higher service volume than we would have expected. some because of the rampup on the in person assistance in communities, licensed agents, certified enrollment counselors, county workers, has been slower than we want. some of it's because we or our health plan partners haven't been as effective as we'd want in providing notices to consumers. so they've needed to call back again and again. for issues we'd rather not to have to call back about. so what have we done? we've done six or seven things to improve customer service now during open enrollment. adding literally hundreds of customer service workers. many of whom will be bilingual. adding self-service tools for consumers. doing e-mail campaigns. following up on consumers that have started