Deloitte's $768M Medicaid System Errs, Denying Benefits and Raising Due Process Questions

When a $768 million government IT system wrongfully denies a disabled citizen essential health coverage, it is not just a technical glitch—it's a potential violation of constitutional due process. The case of Marie Noon, denied Medicaid in Michigan due to a Deloitte-operated algorithm, forces a reckoning on how states handle automated decisions that carry life-and-death consequences. Legal experts now ask: who is accountable when proprietary code discriminates against the vulnerable?

A disabled Michigan woman's Medicaid denial, caused by an IT error in a system operated by Deloitte, exposes a systemic failure that blends healthcare access with government technology vulnerabilities. Marie Noon, a 48-year-old former bank manager with adult-onset Still's disease, was wrongfully denied Medicaid coverage in 2025 after losing private insurance. Despite being eligible, an error in the state's eligibility system, which Deloitte has run under contracts worth approximately $768 million since 2006, led to a denial that took months of pushback and legal assistance to reverse. This incident is not isolated; Deloitte operates similar systems in at least 25 states, meaning similar denials may be occurring nationwide, disproportionately affecting disabled, elderly, and low-income populations who rely on these safety nets.

“

Despite being eligible, an error in the state's eligibility system, which Deloitte has run under contracts worth approximately $768 million since 2006, led to a denial that took months of pushback and legal assistance to reverse.

The case highlights a dangerous intersection of healthcare and IT outsourcing. When a system as critical as Medicaid eligibility is entrusted to a private contractor, the consequences of a simple coding error or data mismatch can be life-threatening. Noon, who manages eight daily medications to control her heart rate, prevent strokes, and manage fluid retention, faced the prospect of unaffordable care without insurance. Her story illustrates that even "tech-savvy" individuals can be trapped in automated denial loops, eroding trust in public benefits. The administrative burden of appealing such denials often falls on those least equipped to navigate it, resulting in delayed or forgone care, worsening health outcomes, and increased long-term costs.

From a legal standpoint, these denials raise due process and equal protection concerns. Individuals are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge adverse decisions. When an IT system generates an error without clear explanation, the notice may be insufficient, and the appeals process becomes opaque. The reliance on proprietary algorithms and contractor-operated platforms can shield both the state and contractor from scrutiny, leaving applicants with little recourse beyond costly litigation. The $768 million contract value raises questions about performance accountability, oversight, and whether cost savings from automation are lost to error-induced harm. The case also signals potential liability for Deloitte under theories of negligence or breach of contract if systemic flaws cause widespread harm.