1205-0245 Supporting Statement Part B- 7-29-22 Final

1205-0245 Supporting Statement Part B- 7-29-22 Final.docx

UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement Program

OMB: 1205-0245

Document [docx]
Download: docx | pdf

Supporting Statement B



Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods


1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any sampling or other respondent selection methods to be used. Data on the number of entities (e.g., establishments, State and local government units, households, or persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.


a. Respondent Universe. The respondent universe for paid and denied claims comprises fifty-two State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), claimants, employers, and third parties. Within each SWA, the universe for paid claims is defined as all intrastate and interstate weeks paid (or offset) in the State Unemployment Insurance (UI), Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE), and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) programs. For denied claims, each SWA defines three universes of formal, documented denial decisions or determinations of ineligibility for benefits. These denial decisions are based on (a) monetary issues; (b) separation issues; and (c) nonseparation, or "continuing eligibility" issues.


  1. Sampling Methodology.


BAM Paid Claims


SWAs select systematic random samples of paid UI claims each week and use the results of the BAM paid claims investigations to estimate accurately the number and dollar value of proper and improper payments (overpayments and underpayments), and their rates of occurrence. BAM paid claims also provides information that can be used for program improvement, including the type of payment error, error cause, responsible party, point of detection within the system, and the actions of claimants, employers, and agencies prior to the BAM investigation.


The Department has supplied each SWA with software that performs quality assurance edits of the sampling frames and randomly selects the BAM paid claims samples.1 Each week a random sample is selected of both intrastate and interstate original payments (including combined wage claims) made for a week of unemployment under the State UI, UCX or UCFE programs. A minimum sample of 360 cases per year is pulled in the ten states with the smallest UI program workloads (defined as average annual UI weeks paid during the most recent five calendar years) and a minimum sample of 480 cases per year in the other states. State BAM staff audit each selected claim, examining all aspects of a claimant's eligibility to receive unemployment compensation during the sampled week. In their investigation, staff verify wages used to establish monetary entitlements, the claimant's reason for being unemployed, efforts to find work, during the week and any other factors which would have affected the claimant’s entitlement to a benefit during the sampled week or the amount of the benefit paid. Effective January 2008, paid claims selected for BAM must be matched with the National Directory of New Hires. The findings are then coded and entered into a database that is maintained on a computer located in each SWA. The Department uploads state BAM results (excluding the claimant Social Security Number and other personally identifying information) to a database maintained by the ETA Office of Unemployment Insurance. The Department publishes annual performance results and uses the data for various analytical and evaluative purposes.


BAM Denied Claims


Each week, SWAs select systematic random samples from the three separate sampling frames constructed from the universes of claims for UI for which eligibility was denied for monetary, separation, or nonseparation reasons. Samples are selected using the same sampling frame edit and sample selection software used for paid claims. The Department estimates the accuracy of decisions to deny claimants UI, based on the results of the case investigations for these samples.


Investigation of BAM denied claims follows the paid claims case investigation methodology. It evaluates denials accuracy by investigating random samples of each of the three types of denials. All states sample a minimum of 150 cases of each type of denial in each calendar year. State BAM staff review agency records and contact claimants, employers, and all other relevant parties to verify information in agency records or obtain additional information pertinent to the determination that denies eligibility. Unlike the investigation of paid claims, in which all prior determinations affecting claimant eligibility for the compensated week selected for the sample are evaluated, the investigation of denied claims is limited to the issue upon which the denial determination is based.


The Department distributes a table of random start numbers to use with the BAM paid and denied claims sample selection software. A separate random number is provided for each sample pull (paid claims, monetary denials, separation denials, nonseparation denials) for each of the 52 weekly samples.


Scope: Both paid and denied intrastate and interstate liable claims in the State UI, UCFE, and UCX programs are included in the sampling frames. Paid and denied interstate claims are included in the sampling frames of the interstate liable state. The “liable” state is the state which pays the UI benefits (that is, that state’s Unemployment Trust Fund is charged). The “agent” state is the state that processes the UI claim.


Operational Definitions of Sampling Frames: Unless otherwise stated, definitions refer to those used in ET Handbook 401, 5th edition. ETA report cell references are those used in ET Handbook 402, 5th edition.


(1) Paid Weeks


Include only paid or compensated weeks that fall into all of the following: a) regular program type (UI, UCFE, UCX, or any combination thereof), b) weeks for which the payments/offsets2 are original payments (defined as the first valid payment/offset made by a state agency to a claimant for that week; offsets would normally recover overpayments established for previous weeks), c) weeks for which “total” or “part-total” payments/offsets are made, and d) weeks for which payments/offsets/intercepted payments are made to intrastate claimants, to interstate claimants by the liable state, or for combined wage claims.


Exclude weeks that all waiting weeks, weeks for which supplemental payments are made, weeks with stop payments, and all weeks paid under the Short Time Compensation (STC) [Workshare], Extended Benefits (EB), Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA), Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) programs, any temporary Federal-State supplemental compensation programs, or other special programs, such as Emergency Unemployment Compensation (including CARES Act programs).


(2) Monetary Denials


Include all initial claims that meet the definition for inclusion in the ETA 5159 Claims and Activities report on lines 101 (State UI), 102 (UCFE, No UI), and 103 (UCX only), for item 2 (new intrastate, excluding transitional), item 6 (transitional), and item 7 (interstate received as liable state) and for which eligibility was denied because of:


Insufficient wages,

Insufficient hours/weeks/days,

Failure of high quarter wage test,

Requalification wage requirement, or

Other state monetary eligibility requirement


Exclude denied claims made under the Short Time Compensation (STC) (Workshare), Extended Benefits (EB), Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA), Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), or any temporary Federal-State supplemental compensation programs including CARES Act programs.


(3) Separation Denials


Include all separation determinations that meet the definition for inclusion in the ETA 9052 Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse (Detection Date) report in cells c1 (intrastate), c5 (interstate), and c193 (multi-claimant) and for which eligibility was denied based on any of the following issues:



Voluntary quit (either personal or work connected),

Discharge,

Labor dispute, or

Other separation issue reportable under definitions in ET Handbook 401


Exclude denied claims made under the STC, EB, TRA, DUA, or any temporary Federal-State supplemental compensation programs.


(4) Nonmonetary-Nonseparation Denials


Include all nonmonetary-nonseparation determinations that meet the definition for inclusion in the ETA 9052 Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse (Detection Date) report in cells c97 (intrastate), c101 (interstate), and c193 (multiclaimant) and for which eligibility was denied based on any of the following issues:


Able and/or available to work,

Actively seeking work,

Disqualifying/unreported income,

Refusal of suitable work or offer of job referral,

Refusal of referral to profiling services,

Failure to report,

Failure to register with the employment service, or

Other nonseparation eligibility issue (for example, alien status, athlete, school employee, seasonality, removal of disqualification, and determination of whether claimant’s activities or status constitutes service or employment).


Exclude denied claims made under the STC, EB, TRA, DUA, or any temporary Federal-State supplemental compensation programs including CARES act programs.


Frequency and Timing:


SWAs create a sampling frame file each week for all four universes. For paid claims, the survey population is selected from all weeks for which payments are made or offsets applied during a period that begins at 12:00 a.m. on Sunday and ends at 11:59 p.m. on Saturday. This interval is defined by the run time(s) of the computer programs that issue the checks or apply offsets.


The sampling frame for separation and nonseparation denied claims includes all decisions to deny UI claims issued during the period 12:00 a.m. Sunday to 11:59 p.m. Saturday. The date of the determination is the date printed on the determination notice. If no notice is issued, it is the date that the denial action was entered into the agency’s record system or that a permanent stop payment order was issued.


The sampling frame for monetary denied claims is constructed slightly differently as it is possible that a UI claim may initially be denied for insufficient wages but subsequently become monetarily eligible upon the addition of wages from out-of-state employers (combined wage claims), Federal wages (UCFE and/or UCX programs), or as a result of the application of alternate base period formulas. In order to allow time for SWAs to request and receive Federal, out of state, and recently earned wage credits, the sampling frame for monetary denials is constructed two weeks after the week ending date of the initial claim. For example, the sampling frame for batch 201810 (March 4 - 10, 2018) will consist of new initial and transitional claims filed on or before February 24 for which the most recent determination issued between February 18 and March 10 denies monetary eligibility.


c. Case Investigation. BAM paid and denied claims case investigations are conducted according to the methods and procedures documented in ET Handbook 395; case investigation procedures for both paid and denied claims are described in detail in chapter VI, except as noted in chapter VIII for denied claims investigations. The information that is collected isspecified in the data collection instruments (DCIs) for both paid and denied claims.


BAM investigators collect DCI information from SWA records, claimant questionnaires, and interviews with employers and other. The parties with information relevant to the paid or denied claim. The investigator then records this information in an automated database, which consists of individual data records for each sampled paid claim and denial.


All paid and denied claims investigations involve one state investigator and one claimant. The person whose claim was either paid or denied is contacted in-person, by telephone, or by mail.

BAM investigators obtain Information from employers (and their representatives) and "third parties" -- persons other than the claimant or employer, such as a doctor, school, or labor union, who possess information pertinent to the paid or denied case.


Unlike the investigation of paid claims, in which all decisions affecting claimant eligibility that precede the compensated week selected for the sample are evaluated, the investigation of denied claims is limited to the issue type upon which the denial decision was based. For example, if a continued week claim is denied because the agency determined the claimant was not available for work, then only the availability issue will be investigated. The monetary, separation and any other nonmonetary determinations which could have affected eligibility for the week claimed will not be investigated. SWAs have the flexibility to conduct the investigation of both paid denied claims for UI by in-person interview, telephone, mail or fax, as they deem appropriate.


2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:


a. Stratification and Sample Selection. For both paid and denied claims, each state’s sample is stratified by week (which BAM refers to as a batch). For denied claims, samples are selected from sampling frames for each of the three types of denials (monetary, separation, and nonseparation). Systematic samples are selected weekly using software and random start numbers provided by the Department. Annual estimates are weighted to reflect the sample stratification. The formulae used to produce weighted estimates for paid and denied claims accuracy rates are in Attachment B-1.


b. Estimation Procedure. See Attachment B-1 for the formulae used to estimate paid and denied claims accuracy rates and sampling variances.


c. Degree of Accuracy Needed. The Department has adopted a standard for data publication that the 95% confidence interval (roughly two times the standard error of estimate) will be estimated and displayed for each estimated accuracy rate. Attachment B-2 displays the estimated rates and sampling errors for calendar year (IPIA) 2020 BAM paid claims results for the following types of overpayments:


Overpayment Rate - The overpayment rate is defined in UIPL No. 09-13, Change 1. It is the total weighted amount of payments determined to be overpaid divided by the weighted dollar amount paid in the BAM sample population. The rate includes fraud, nonfraud recoverable, and nonfraud nonrecoverable overpayments. It excludes payments that are technically proper due to finality, warnings issued for the failure to conduct an active search for work, or due to rules other than finality. All causes and responsible parties are included in this rate.


Underpayment Rate – The underpayment rate is defined in UIPL No. 9-13 Change 1. It is the total weighted amount of payments determined to be underpaid divided by the weighted dollar amount paid in the BAM sample population. All causes and responsible parties are included in this rate. It includes errors where additional payment is made to the claimant. It excludes those errors that are technically proper due to finality rules or technically proper due to rules other than finality.


Improper Payment Rate – This rate includes UI benefits overpaid plus UI benefits underpaid divided by the total amount of UI benefits paid. Overpayments, underpayments, and total UI benefits paid are estimated from the BAM survey results of paid UI claims in the state UI, UCFE, and UCX programs. Overpayments and underpayments determined to be technically proper under state UI law for finality and other reasons are excluded from the measure.


Agency Responsibility Rate - This rate includes overpayments for which the SWA was either solely responsible or shared responsibility with claimants, employers, or third parties, such as labor unions or private employment referral agencies. The rate includes fraud, nonfraud recoverable overpayments, and nonfraud nonrecoverable overpayments. It excludes payments that are technically proper due to finality or other rules.


Fraud Rate - The definition of unemployment compensation (UC) fraud varies from state to state – there is no federal definition of fraud in the UC program. Generally, fraud involves a knowing and willful act and/or concealment of material facts to obtain or increase benefits when benefits are not due. States vary on the level of evidence required to demonstrate a knowing and willful act or the concealment of facts. An overpayment which is classified as a fraud overpayment in one state might be determined to be a nonfraud overpayment in another state. Often fraud determinations include looking at a pattern of action or the claimant’s certification of erroneous information under the penalty of perjury. Also states differ on the implementing fraud administrative penalty determinations. In some states, a fraud determination becomes effective on the date of the fraudulent act. In other states, the administrative penalty takes effect on the determination date. Since fraud determination criteria and thresholds vary throughout the SWAs, the individual state rates reflect these differences. The rate includes all causes and responsible parties.



Attachment B-3 displays the estimated rates and sampling errors for IPIA 2020 BAM denied claims results for monetary, separation, and nonseparation issues. Improper Denial Rates - BAM estimates the percentage of claimants improperly denied benefits. This rate includes three subcategories. These subcategories are monetary denials, separation denials, and nonseparation denials. The BAM program does not assign a dollar estimate to improper denial rates; however, improper denials are corrected when permitted by law.


d. Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures. BAM paid and denied claims does not involve any unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures.


e. Use of periodic data collection to reduce burden. Less frequent data collection cycles would not be an appropriate means for reducing burden. This issue is addressed in Part A of the Justification, section A-6. To make reliable estimates of accuracy in a highly seasonal program such as UI, sampling must occur continuously. BAM paid and denied claims samples are drawn weekly. The continuous investigation of these samples, with regular data entry, also provides up-to-date information on accuracy to facilitate continuous improvement. Because the samples are weekly, they can be aggregated over various time periods for analytical purposes.


3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.


Because claimants are required to provide information concerning their continued eligibility for UI benefits, nonresponse to the BAM claimant questionnaire can affect eligibility for benefit payments. The response rate for claimant contacts (that is, the percentage of claimant questionnaires completed) for BAM paid claims is approximately14,983 or 86.95 percent of the completed cases. It is more difficult to obtain a complete questionnaire from claimants who were denied benefits. Some of these individuals have returned to work or have relocated and are unavailable for interview.


Even if claimant information cannot be obtained directly, BAM investigators can obtain sufficient information from SWA records, and other relevant parties in order to reach an informed decision concerning the accuracy of the decision to deny benefits. The BAM investigators verify all information provided by UI recipients or obtained from automated file systems and other agency records. They contact all employers for whom the claimant worked before becoming unemployed or who provided part-time work during the claims series or were contacted in job search, as well as interested third parties, such as labor unions or employment agencies. The table shows instances where improper payment were found by claimant responsiveness.

BAM Case Error Rates By Claimant Responsiveness

July 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020 (Batch Range 201927 through 202013)

 

 

Number

Percent

# Cases

Percent

ST

Claimant

Cases in

Response

With

cases

 

Response

Sample

Rates

Errors

IMPROPER*

US

Responded

14,983

86.95%

1,647

10.99%

US

Nonresponse

2,249

13.05%

468

20.81%

US

Total Cases

17,232

100.00%

2,115

12.27%

Overpayment Cause Counts and Percentages may reflect more than one payment error on a given case completed


In IPIA 2020, although the percentage of claimant questionnaires completed varied considerably by sample type, states were able to complete nearly all of their cases based on agency documentation, employer, and third party information. The following table summarizes claimant response by data collection method. Attachment B-4 displays the response rates for the IPIA 2020 BAM paid claims samples, and Attachment B-5 displays the response rates for the IPIA 2020 BAM denied claims samples.


BAM Case Completion and Claimant Interview Method -- IPIA 2020

Sample Type

Cases Sampled

Valid Cases*

Cases Completed**

Percent Complete

In-Person

Tele-Phone

Mail

No Clmnt. Inter.

Paid Claims

17,681

17,673

17,232

97.50%

2.77%

38.97%

45.20%

13.05%

Monetary

5,795

5,695

5,533

97.16%

0.45%

36.21%

18.47%

44.56%

Separation

5,733

5,701

5,594

98.12%

0.46%

36.45%

23.22%

39.73%

Nonseparation

5,782

5,728

5,594

97.66%

0.62%

40.57%

27.40%

31.28%

* Cases sampled minus cases deleted because they did not meet the definition for inclusion in the survey population and denied claims that were withdrawn by the claimant. **To meet IPIA reporting timetables, the database was frozen on 10/29/2020. The number of valid cases completed is those signed off by the BAM program’s supervisor by the close of business on 10/28/2020. (Note: As a result of COVID-19 pandemic, the sample population only includes three quarters of data).


The Department is acutely aware of the importance of claimant response to the BAM questionnaire and has established a Federal-State workgroup to examine the issue of claimant nonresponse. The Department has drafted an advisory, which is currently in Department clearance, to issue guidance to address the specific issues of adjudicating work search and reporting errors when the claimant fails to respond to the BAM audit questionnaire.


In addition, in order to reduce nonresponse error and maintain coding consistency, the Department will continue to conduct training for BAM supervisors and investigators and hold Federal-State peer reviews of completed BAM audits to ensure that coding accurately reflects state law and policy and that states are following the BAM methodology.


In order to reduce respondent burden and maximize claimant response, the number of data elements collected for DCA is significantly smaller than the amount of data collected for BAM paid claims. Because only information relevant to the monetary, separation, or nonseparation denial issue is verified, the number of data elements per case is one-third or less of the number collected for BAM paid claims, which investigates decisions at all three points in the UI claims process. In addition, SWAs follow up the initial claimant contact with a sufficient number of call-backs and re-contact attempts to demonstrate that a reasonable attempt was made to obtain the information.


SWAs administering the BAM program are encouraged to:


Use all available data collection methods -- in-person, telephone, mail, e-mail, and fax -- to complete their investigations;


Be as flexible as feasible in accommodating the schedules of claimants, employers, and other relevant parties;


Develop clear and concise questionnaires and scripts which clearly explain the purpose of the data collection effort and minimize the time commitment of the respondent. To this end the Department shares examples and prototype case investigation materials in order to disseminate best practices as widely as possible;


Clearly inform the respondents that the privacy of the information they provide will be strictly maintained and that any information that can identify an individual, such as a claimant’s social security number, will not be shared with the Department’s or any other state’s record systems; and


Emphasize to respondents that the major objective of the BAM program is the improvement of the UI system, and that their cooperation will contribute to insuring that individuals who are in fact eligible for UI benefits receive them.


4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of test may be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of information.


Paid Claims


In 1991 the Department of Labor completed a pilot test of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of telephone contacts in lieu of in-person interviews with claimants, employers, and third parties. Four states participated in the pilot test, giving a wide range of economic, social and geographical environments. The pilot showed that the telephone was reasonably effective in detecting overpayment and underpayment errors: the patterns of erroneous payments by type and cause were basically the same as detected by the in-person control investigations. Although the rate of dollars overpaid discovered by the two methods in one state was virtually identical, in the other three the telephone estimate was only 60% of the in-person estimate. The pilot showed that the telephone methodology was very effective for certain aspects of BAM investigations, but less so for others. It also showed that BAM investigations could be done considerably less expensively by telephone--at about half the cost, confirming the estimate from a similar pilot project conducted in Idaho in the late 1980s.


Denied Claims


In 1987 the Department completed a five-state pilot test of using the BAM field-check methodology for determining the accuracy of benefit denial decisions. Three different sampling designs were evaluated in the 1986-87 pilot: (1) separate sampling frames for monetary, separation, and nonseparation (continuing eligibility) denials and a single sampling frame for all paid claims; (2) separate sampling frames for denials and decisions to affirm eligibility at the monetary, separation, and nonseparation points of determination in the UI claims process; and (3) a longitudinal approach, in which claimants were sampled at the time that the initial claim was filed, and eligibility determinations (either to deny or affirm eligibility) were investigated as they occurred during the claims process. The 1997-98 DCA pilot was based on model 1, which was the simplest design and preserved the design used for BAM paid claims. As noted in Part A, the Department has relied on results of the 1997-98 DCA pilot to estimate case-completion times and burden hours for national implementation of DCA.


5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.


The following individual consulted on statistical aspects of the design.

Andy Spisak

571 481-0450


The following individual collect and analyze the paid and denied claims data and may be contacted for further information:


Ross Miller, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance

Phone: 202-693-3178, E-mail: miller.ross@dol.gov

Estimation Procedure for Benefit Accuracy Measurement


BAM Paid Claims


1. Ratio Estimate of Overpayment Rate


The parameter to be estimated, Ro, is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits overpaid to total UI benefits paid: Ro = Y/X, where Y = Total dollars overpaid in the population and X = Total UI benefits paid in the population.


Ro is estimated by the sample ratio:


ro =


where:


H = Number of batches (weekly samples) in the period for which the estimate is being made.


Nh = Total number of UI payments in the population for batch h. (Note: This value is available from state automated record systems and does not have to be estimated.)


mh = Number of completed sample cases in batch h.


xhi = Amount of UI benefits paid/offset for the ith case in batch h.


yhi = Dollars overpaid for the ith case in batch h.


Nonresponse is assumed to be random.



2. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Overpayment Rate


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variance of the ratio estimate of the BAM paid claims overpayment rate.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)


estVar(ro)=


=


where:



is the sample variance of the dollars overpaid;



is the sample variance of the dollars paid/offset; and



is the sample covariance of the dollars overpaid and the dollars paid/offset.


X = Total population dollars paid/offset for the H batches.

(Note: This value is available from state automated record systems and does not have to be estimated.)


3. Ratio Estimate of Overpayment Rate for Subgroups


The parameter to be estimated, Rok, is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits overpaid to total UI benefits paid for population subgroup k: Rok = Yk/Xk, where Yk=Total dollars overpaid in the population for the kth subgroup and Xk=Total UI benefits paid in the population for the kth subgroup.


Rok is estimated by the sample ratio:


rok =


where:


xhik = Amount of UI benefits paid/offset for the ith case in the kth subgroup in batch h.


xhik = xhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

xhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup


yhik = Dollars overpaid for the ith case in the kth subgroup in batch h.


yhik = yhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

yhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup


Nonresponse is assumed to be random.



4. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Overpayment

Rate for Subgroups


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variances of the ratio estimate of the overpayment rate for subgroups.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)



estVar(rok)=


where:



is the sample variance of the dollars overpaid in the kth subgroup;



is the sample variance of the dollars paid/offset in the kth subgroup; and




is the sample covariance of the dollars overpaid and the dollars paid/offset.



is the estimated total dollars paid/offset for the H batches.


In the preceding formulas,


xhik = xhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

xhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup;


yhik = yhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

yhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup


xhk = Amount of UI benefits paid/offset in the kth subgroup in the sample in batch h.





5. Ratio Estimate of Proper Payment Rate


The parameter to be estimated, Rp, is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits properly paid to total UI benefits paid: Rp = Z/X, where Z = Total dollars properly paid in the population and X = Total UI benefits paid in the population.


Rp is estimated by the sample ratio:


rp =


where H, Nh, mh, and xhi are defined as in 1., above, and


zhi = Dollars properly paid (dollars paid - dollars overpaid) for the ith case in batch h.


6. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Proper Payment Rate


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variance of the ratio estimate of the BAM paid claims proper payment rate.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)


estVar(rp) =


where H, Nh, mh, X, and s2xh are defined as in 1. and 2., above;


s2zh is the sample variance of the dollars properly paid; and


szxh is the sample covariance of the dollars properly paid and dollars paid.


7. Ratio Estimate of Proper Payment Rate for Subgroups


The parameter to be estimated, Rpk, is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits properly paid to total UI benefits paid for population subgroup k: Rpk = Zk/Xk, where Zk=Total dollars properly paid in the population for the kth subgroup and Xk=Total UI benefits paid in the population for the kth subgroup.


Rpk is estimated by the sample ratio rpk which is defined as the estimator rok in section 3, above, except that:


zhik = Dollars properly paid (dollars paid - dollars overpaid) for the ith case in the kth subgroup in batch h.


zhik = zhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

zhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup


8. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Proper Payment

Rate for Subgroups


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variances of the ratio estimate of the proper payment rate for subgroups.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)


estVar(rpk)=


where H, Nh, mh, , and s2xh(k) are defined as in 1.and 4., above;


s2zh(k) is the sample variance of the dollars properly paid in the kth subgroup; and


szxh(k) is the sample covariance of the dollars properly paid and dollars paid in the kth subgroup.


9. Ratio Estimate of Underpayment Rate


The parameter to be estimated, Ru is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits underpaid to total UI benefits paid: Ru = U/X, where U = Total dollars underpaid in the population and X = Total UI benefits paid in the population.


Ru is estimated by the sample ratio:


ru=


where H, Nh, mh, and xhi are defined as in 1., above, and


uhi = Dollars underpaid for the ith case in batch h.




10. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Underpayment Rate


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variance of the ratio estimate of the BAM paid claims underpayment rate.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)


estVar(ru) =


where H, Nh, mh, X, and s2xh are defined as in 1. and 2., above;


s2uh is the sample variance of the dollars underpaid; and


suxh is the sample covariance of the dollars underpaid and dollars paid.


11. Ratio Estimate of Underpayment Rate for Subgroups


The parameter to be estimated, Ruk, is the ratio of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits underpaid to total UI benefits paid for population subgroup k: Ruk = Uk/Xk, where Uk=Total dollars underpaid in the population for the kth subgroup and Xk=Total UI benefits paid in the population for the kth subgroup.


Ruk is estimated by the sample ratio ruk which is defined as the estimator rok in section 3, above, except that:


uhik = Dollars underpaid for the ith case in the kth subgroup in batch h.


uhik = uhi, for hi in the kth subgroup, and

uhik = 0, for hi not in the kth subgroup


12. Sampling Variance of Ratio Estimate of Underpayment

Rate for Subgroups


The following formula will be used to estimate the sampling variances of the ratio estimate of the underpayment rate for subgroups.


(Note: Because the sampling fractions, fh=mh/Nh, are negligible, the term (1-fh) has been omitted from the equations.)


estVar(ruk)=


where H, Nh, mh, , and s2xh(k) are defined as in 1.and 4., above;


s2uh(k) is the sample variance of the dollars underpaid in the kth subgroup; and


suxh(k) is the sample covariance of the dollars underpaid and dollars paid in the kth subgroup.


Confidence Intervals


The 95% confidence interval for any estimated ratio rθ (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, or 11, above) is:




Coefficient of Variation


The coefficient of variation (cv) of an estimate rθ is:





BAM Denied Claims



Equations for Case Error Estimates


The following notation will be used:


H = the number of weeks (batches) in the period for which the estimate is

being made.


Nh = the number of denied claims in week h.


Xh = the number of claims in week h which were erroneously denied.


Ph = Xh/Nh = the proportion of claims in week h which were erroneously

denied.


N = = total number of denied claims in the period.


X = = total number of claims erroneously denied in the period.


The parameter to be estimated, P, is the proportion of claims erroneously denied during the period. Estimates will be made for each of the three denial universes -- monetary, separation, and nonseparation. We wish to estimate:


P = X/N =


Now let


mh = the number of completed sample claims for week h.


m = = total number of completed sample claims in the period.


xh = the number of claims in week h which were erroneously denied.


= proportion of sample claims in week h which were erroneously denied.



If it is assumed that non-response is "at random", then .


It follows that is unbiased for P. Furthermore, as sampling is independent within each week (stratum), it follows that


where fh = mh/Nh. The usual estimator for is


.


If fh is negligible then



can be used for variance estimation.



Proportions for Subgroups

The proportion of denial actions which were incorrectly decided may be estimated for population subgroups, for example UI program (State UI, UCFE, UCX), filing method (in-person, telephone, mail), or demographic classifications.


Building on the notation above, for the kth subgroup and the hth week let


Nhk = the number of denied claims.


Xhk = the number of claims were erroneously denied.


Phk = Xhk/Nhk = the proportion of claims which were erroneously denied.


Then for the kth subgroup we have

Nk = = total number of denied claims in the period.


Xk = = total number of claims erroneously denied in the period.


The parameter to be estimated, Pk, is the proportion of claims erroneously denied during the period for subgroup k. Analogous to previous work, we can write


Pk = Xk/Nk = .


Note that neither Xk nor Nk is known. For the kth subgroup, hth week, let


mhk = the number of completed sample claims for week h.


xhk = the number of claims in week h which were erroneously denied.


Assuming nonresponse is "at random", is unbiased for Xk and is unbiased for Nk. The ratio estimator is approximately unbiased for Pk, and



where fhk = mhk/Nhk and θhk = Nhk/Nh. Assuming that fhk is negligible, an estimate for the variance is given by



where


and



{  .



Confidence Intervals


The 95% confidence interval for any estimate (u) is:





Coefficient of Variation


The coefficient of variation (cv) of an estimate u is:



UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement Rates

Batch Range 201927 through 202026

ST

Sample

Total Amount of benefits compensated in population sampled

Overpay-ment (OP)

Rate

(a)

OP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Underpay-ment (UP)

Rate

(c)

UP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Improper Payment Rate

(OP+UP) [(a)+(c)]

Fraud Rate

Fraud Rate

95% CI

+/-

Agency Responsible Rate

AGY Resp Rate

95% CI

+/-


US

17,232

$20,448,076,675

8.722%

0.705%

0.445%

0.098%

9.167%

3.167%

0.520%

0.905%

0.214%


AK

361

$59,986,181

8.158%

2.885%

0.954%

0.569%

9.112%

1.487%

1.413%

0.553%

0.845%


AL

362

$106,304,296

10.420%

3.261%

0.256%

0.219%

10.676%

2.565%

1.750%

1.464%

1.300%


AR

358

$76,782,664

4.630%

2.547%

0.640%

0.500%

5.270%

1.782%

1.411%

1.526%

2.026%


AZ

357

$136,251,651

10.808%

3.389%

0.007%

0.010%

10.815%

3.314%

1.894%

1.265%

1.152%


CA

569

$3,679,853,734

9.921%

2.631%

0.492%

0.341%

10.413%

6.931%

2.310%

1.157%

0.921%


CO

316

$265,180,370

7.271%

3.180%

0.455%

0.366%

7.726%

0.358%

0.598%

0.354%

0.642%


CT

362

$454,965,736

11.075%

3.671%

0.213%

0.211%

11.289%

1.124%

0.718%

3.350%

2.102%


DC

359

$83,349,445

8.384%

2.765%

0.288%

0.335%

8.672%

1.622%

1.342%

0.863%

0.988%


DE

270

$50,937,009

5.423%

2.860%

0.099%

0.125%

5.522%

0.157%

0.311%

2.325%

2.110%


FL

356

$230,034,550

9.224%

3.028%

0.126%

0.216%

9.350%

1.368%

1.254%

5.460%

2.506%


GA

360

$246,377,147

4.412%

2.730%

0.000%

0.000%

4.412%

0.302%

0.596%

1.118%

1.072%


HI

263

$100,835,590

4.660%

2.867%

0.160%

0.168%

4.820%

1.244%

1.845%

0.393%

0.775%


IA

360

$309,734,838

5.231%

2.037%

0.131%

0.142%

5.362%

0.895%

0.899%

1.118%

1.131%


ID

273

$67,106,593

4.481%

2.515%

0.123%

0.190%

4.604%

1.617%

1.429%

0.996%

1.507%


IL

360

$1,272,294,270

8.739%

3.104%

1.212%

0.688%

9.951%

2.661%

1.878%

0.462%

0.516%


IN

333

$177,663,185

8.193%

3.090%

0.000%

0.000%

8.193%

0.000%

0.000%

3.538%

2.079%


KS

353

$98,043,883

12.919%

3.629%

0.010%

0.019%

12.929%

1.455%

1.506%

0.692%

0.824%


KY

316

$228,426,788

7.412%

2.646%

0.119%

0.144%

7.531%

2.473%

1.644%

0.608%

0.846%


LA

349

$94,064,159

9.500%

3.557%

0.302%

0.482%

9.802%

4.447%

2.730%

2.481%

2.342%


MA

348

$962,100,388

6.853%

2.381%

0.780%

0.657%

7.633%

2.966%

1.535%

1.093%

0.826%


MD

360

$309,285,680

5.914%

2.394%

0.041%

0.057%

5.955%

1.507%

1.024%

0.643%

0.810%


ME

276

$63,421,941

3.889%

3.068%

0.333%

0.301%

4.222%

0.814%

0.892%

1.308%

2.286%


MI

348

$569,696,101

30.371%

5.032%

0.126%

0.117%

30.497%

1.209%

1.085%

0.442%

0.638%


MN

313

$570,444,852

6.937%

2.910%

0.055%

0.077%

6.992%

2.304%

1.595%

0.000%

0.000%



UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement Rates

Batch Range 201927 through 202026

ST

Sample

Total Amount of benefits compensated in population sampled

Overpay-ment (OP)

Rate

(a)

OP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Underpay-ment (UP)

Rate

(c)

UP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Improper Payment Rate

(OP+UP) [(a)+(c)]

Fraud Rate

Fraud Rate

95% CI

+/-

Agency Responsible Rate

AGY Resp Rate

95% CI

+/-


MO

360

$175,221,994

5.337%

2.320%

0.000%

0.000%

5.337%

2.011%

1.389%

0.000%

0.000%


MS

366

$46,170,446

7.614%

2.999%

0.141%

0.242%

7.755%

4.443%

2.111%

0.620%

0.915%


MT

270

$82,272,140

4.459%

1.993%

0.084%

0.090%

4.544%

0.788%

0.778%

0.726%

1.068%


NC

390

$191,574,760

15.145%

2.295%

0.420%

0.316%

15.565%

2.429%

0.950%

0.248%

0.235%


ND

232

$61,907,303

8.401%

4.082%

0.079%

0.124%

8.480%

2.766%

3.346%

0.475%

0.637%


NE

269

$47,614,113

6.559%

3.158%

0.222%

0.418%

6.780%

1.017%

1.330%

2.397%

2.175%


NH

273

$30,113,746

3.767%

2.384%

0.563%

0.518%

4.330%

0.470%

0.950%

0.000%

0.000%


NJ

340

$1,360,072,672

5.784%

2.134%

1.432%

0.502%

7.216%

0.401%

0.575%

0.351%

0.392%


NM

336

$99,978,433

5.637%

2.376%

0.128%

0.141%

5.765%

3.739%

2.031%

1.018%

1.058%


NV

244

$143,774,810

6.462%

3.258%

0.083%

0.135%

6.545%

4.122%

2.690%

0.949%

1.290%


NY

363

$1,755,610,315

8.863%

2.946%

0.328%

0.248%

9.191%

4.614%

2.134%

0.129%

0.219%


OH

340

$608,897,999

6.298%

2.267%

0.160%

0.161%

6.459%

0.450%

0.605%

1.086%

1.138%


OK

368

$206,233,171

3.820%

2.119%

0.111%

0.173%

3.931%

2.115%

1.626%

1.045%

0.960%


OR

350

$371,494,915

8.703%

2.970%

0.873%

0.725%

9.576%

3.665%

1.893%

1.315%

1.297%


PA

362

$1,396,896,112

8.981%

2.870%

0.242%

0.383%

9.223%

4.319%

2.070%

0.822%

0.933%


PR

325

$96,002,481

5.459%

2.339%

0.588%

0.356%

6.047%

2.405%

1.613%

5.217%

2.332%


RI

340

$101,788,595

15.717%

4.210%

0.307%

0.263%

16.024%

2.638%

1.448%

0.972%

0.659%


SC

352

$114,088,024

11.804%

3.375%

0.075%

0.106%

11.879%

6.813%

2.590%

0.360%

0.534%


SD

267

$20,658,822

1.617%

1.102%

0.026%

0.031%

1.643%

0.753%

0.861%

0.187%

0.360%


TN

361

$138,001,157

11.259%

3.279%

0.039%

0.058%

11.299%

2.063%

1.434%

2.886%

1.823%


TX

369

$1,664,577,771

4.258%

2.049%

0.256%

0.291%

4.514%

1.625%

1.378%

0.286%

0.563%


UT

362

$107,318,873

4.283%

2.225%

0.126%

0.218%

4.408%

1.027%

0.915%

0.233%

0.477%


VA

350

$206,867,859

9.944%

3.146%

0.076%

0.098%

10.021%

0.340%

0.399%

2.632%

1.652%


VT

58

$17,223,626

6.163%

5.767%

0.290%

0.412%

6.453%

2.481%

4.018%

1.934%

2.790%



UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement Rates

Batch Range 201927 through 202026

ST

Sample

Total Amount of benefits compensated in population sampled

Overpay-ment (OP)

Rate

(a)

OP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Underpay-ment (UP)

Rate

(c)

UP Rate

95% CI

+/-

Improper Payment Rate

(OP+UP) [(a)+(c)]

Fraud Rate

Fraud Rate

95% CI

+/-

Agency Responsible Rate

AGY Resp Rate

95% CI

+/-


WA

343

$716,963,885

9.661%

3.906%

0.118%

0.166%

9.779%

2.600%

2.062%

0.984%

1.234%


WI

334

$275,545,974

18.564%

5.228%

0.296%

0.510%

18.860%

4.140%

2.769%

0.175%

0.290%


WV

356

$155,279,070

4.246%

2.214%

0.676%

0.616%

4.922%

1.060%

1.377%

0.802%

0.826%


WY

270

$42,786,558

5.135%

2.961%

0.806%

0.916%

5.941%

1.500%

1.780%

0.054%

0.107%















These data are based on a completion rate of 97.50% and are subject to change upon completion of the remaining cases.

Prepared by: ETA Office of Unemployment Insurance on 30 Nov 20

Note: 95% C.I. is the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated rate. The interval is the range between the rate minus the value in the 95% C.I. column and the rate plus the value in the 95% C.I. column. For example, the interval for 10.0% +/- 2.5 is 7.5% to 12.5%. The true rate is expected to lie within 95 percent of the intervals constructed from repeated samples of the same size and selected in the same manner as the BAM PCA sample.




BENEFIT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT 

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY 

IMPROPER DENIAL RATES REPORT 

Batch Range: 201927~202026

 

 

Type

 

Adjusted

 

 

 


 

 

Population

Cases

Improper

95% C.I

Improper

95% C.I


State:

Denial Type

of Denials

Completed*

Denial

(+/-)

Denial**

(+/-)


United States

Monetary

547,920

5,271

17.68%

1.20%

14.19%

1.13%


United States

Separation

972,218

5,585

10.25%

0.75%

7.05%

0.61%


United States

Nonseparation

1,796,096

5,589

13.11%

0.80%

9.36%

0.70%


Alaska 

Monetary

1,954

99

4.50%

4.42%

2.98%

3.31%


Alaska 

Separation

6,304

107

5.16%

4.26%

4.40%

4.00%


Alaska 

Nonseparation

18,428

105

11.08%

6.10%

11.08%

6.10%


Alabama 

Monetary

9,363

107

2.70%

3.06%

1.90%

2.63%


Alabama 

Separation

15,364

110

2.46%

2.79%

2.46%

2.79%


Alabama 

Nonseparation

14,794

112

0.84%

1.64%

0.84%

1.64%


Arkansas 

Monetary

1,079

103

10.49%

5.94%

8.73%

5.61%


Arkansas 

Separation

12,517

112

0.89%

1.75%

0.89%

1.75%


Arkansas 

Nonseparation

8,358

112

1.65%

2.27%

1.65%

2.27%


Arizona 

Monetary

37,572

105

0.88%

1.73%

0.88%

1.73%


Arizona 

Separation

15,191

105

2.61%

2.98%

1.91%

2.65%


Arizona 

Nonseparation

16,121

105

4.13%

3.20%

4.13%

3.20%


California 

Monetary

85,010

148

40.98%

8.85%

31.01%

8.45%


California 

Separation

120,841

159

13.96%

5.28%

13.96%

5.28%


California 

Nonseparation

185,786

151

27.56%

7.55%

24.67%

7.38%


Colorado 

Monetary

1,108

76

32.58%

10.27%

27.34%

8.91%


Colorado 

Separation

29,591

102

6.87%

5.10%

6.07%

4.85%


Colorado 

Nonseparation

16,849

102

7.64%

5.99%

5.67%

5.33%


Connecticut 

Monetary

3,193

116

7.82%

5.64%

3.73%

3.85%


Connecticut 

Separation

9,616

116

11.54%

5.96%

10.30%

5.87%


Connecticut 

Nonseparation

11,940

116

9.74%

5.14%

3.34%

3.30%


District of Columbia 

Monetary

1,448

93

18.00%

8.02%

13.95%

7.26%


District of Columbia 

Separation

2,254

111

5.50%

4.31%

3.62%

3.47%


District of Columbia 

Nonseparation

7,954

110

10.70%

5.30%

6.63%

4.48%


Delaware 

Monetary

1,426

113

5.50%

4.25%

3.77%

3.58%


Delaware 

Separation

1,462

115

5.67%

4.43%

1.66%

2.21%


Delaware 

Nonseparation

3,235

116

0.98%

1.89%

0.98%

1.89%


Florida 

Monetary

19,204

114

5.74%

4.28%

5.74%

4.28%


Florida 

Separation

20,472

116

11.13%

6.49%

7.15%

5.35%


Florida 

Nonseparation

33,629

115

8.33%

5.39%

8.33%

5.39%


Georgia 

Monetary

12,281

112

44.15%

11.02%

37.80%

10.79%


Georgia 

Separation

30,917

117

5.88%

4.44%

3.38%

3.40%


Georgia 

Nonseparation

21,260

117

2.23%

2.56%

2.23%

2.56%




BENEFIT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT 

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY 

IMPROPER DENIAL RATES REPORT 

Batch Range: 201927~202026

 

 

Type

 

Adjusted

 

 

 

 

 

Population

Cases

Improper

95% C.I

Improper

95% C.I

State:

Denial Type

of Denials

Completed*

Denial

(+/-)

Denial**

(+/-)

Hawaii 

Monetary

554

85

11.60%

7.12%

11.60%

7.12%

Hawaii 

Separation

2,561

83

16.49%

8.15%

10.18%

5.29%

Hawaii 

Nonseparation

8,848

88

16.49%

6.93%

16.49%

6.93%

Iowa 

Monetary

6,292

89

27.52%

12.68%

25.42%

12.68%

Iowa 

Separation

11,558

102

11.38%

5.72%

9.33%

5.38%

Iowa 

Nonseparation

14,124

98

18.40%

8.61%

13.51%

7.34%

Idaho 

Monetary

1,620

103

10.37%

6.22%

9.82%

6.13%

Idaho 

Separation

4,117

105

5.35%

4.70%

5.35%

4.70%

Idaho 

Nonseparation

16,177

105

15.02%

7.18%

10.65%

6.21%

Illinois 

Monetary

7,107

91

21.96%

8.25%

20.02%

7.79%

Illinois 

Separation

40,008

106

17.48%

7.55%

9.12%

5.03%

Illinois 

Nonseparation

64,851

105

17.46%

7.69%

15.49%

7.48%

Indiana 

Monetary

12,309

104

7.17%

5.38%

7.17%

5.38%

Indiana 

Separation

15,002

104

9.45%

6.02%

8.86%

5.91%

Indiana 

Nonseparation

60,739

104

10.40%

6.45%

7.99%

5.46%

Kansas 

Monetary

4,009

109

6.76%

4.52%

6.76%

4.52%

Kansas 

Separation

11,947

115

8.93%

4.96%

6.54%

4.59%

Kansas 

Nonseparation

15,364

112

8.23%

5.92%

8.23%

5.92%

Kentucky 

Monetary

7,923

109

10.77%

6.26%

9.90%

6.02%

Kentucky 

Separation

12,633

111

4.45%

4.02%

2.14%

2.98%

Kentucky 

Nonseparation

12,062

143

2.78%

3.31%

2.30%

3.17%

Louisiana 

Monetary

9,386

110

8.32%

5.03%

7.53%

4.79%

Louisiana 

Separation

10,383

111

8.34%

5.53%

3.35%

3.40%

Louisiana 

Nonseparation

29,529

111

7.06%

5.03%

3.89%

3.87%

Massachusetts 

Monetary

13,888

88

36.86%

12.39%

33.37%

12.03%

Massachusetts 

Separation

15,968

91

18.18%

9.55%

13.24%

8.79%

Massachusetts 

Nonseparation

47,845

88

16.05%

7.43%

15.14%

7.21%

Maryland 

Monetary

6,228

118

14.07%

6.45%

10.47%

5.74%

Maryland 

Separation

26,384

116

11.29%

6.05%

9.60%

5.92%

Maryland 

Nonseparation

26,738

115

5.70%

4.29%

5.24%

4.20%

Maine 

Monetary

1,272

109

25.16%

9.28%

21.25%

8.68%

Maine 

Separation

2,787

111

9.87%

4.01%

0.51%

0.97%

Maine 

Nonseparation

5,035

115

5.67%

4.00%

3.85%

3.33%

Michigan 

Monetary

19,051

102

15.10%

6.71%

14.06%

6.61%

Michigan 

Separation

38,787

99

14.14%

7.23%

9.44%

5.54%

Michigan 

Nonseparation

128,628

98

10.22%

5.63%

2.88%

3.33%


BENEFIT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT 

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY 

IMPROPER DENIAL RATES REPORT 

Batch Range: 201927~202026

 

 

Type

 

Adjusted

 

 

 

 

 

Population

Cases

Improper

95% C.I

Improper

95% C.I

State:

Denial Type

of Denials

Completed*

Denial

(+/-)

Denial**

(+/-)

Minnesota 

Monetary

3,818

92

21.12%

9.29%

16.23%

8.80%

Minnesota 

Separation

13,323

95

22.11%

8.89%

8.81%

6.58%

Minnesota 

Nonseparation

51,614

93

6.23%

4.65%

3.82%

3.21%

Missouri 

Monetary

11,553

113

2.68%

2.95%

1.90%

2.61%

Missouri 

Separation

24,880

113

14.00%

7.23%

1.73%

2.49%

Missouri 

Nonseparation

42,463

112

44.37%

10.47%

10.31%

5.66%

Mississippi 

Monetary

2,925

102

8.80%

6.13%

7.15%

5.21%

Mississippi 

Separation

10,664

103

3.90%

4.03%

3.34%

3.88%

Mississippi 

Nonseparation

25,926

103

8.83%

5.05%

6.36%

4.28%

Montana 

Monetary

1,377

94

5.24%

4.31%

3.01%

2.88%

Montana 

Separation

3,832

109

3.09%

2.72%

1.47%

2.01%

Montana 

Nonseparation

7,981

110

10.82%

5.63%

9.65%

5.14%

North Carolina 

Monetary

10,894

111

17.28%

7.72%

11.99%

6.41%

North Carolina 

Separation

18,842

117

8.61%

5.64%

3.45%

3.21%

North Carolina 

Nonseparation

27,773

117

27.00%

7.42%

22.92%

6.82%

North Dakota 

Monetary

1,743

94

13.75%

7.79%

8.26%

5.53%

North Dakota 

Separation

2,692

96

10.22%

5.99%

4.97%

4.36%

North Dakota 

Nonseparation

9,342

95

4.63%

4.60%

3.62%

4.16%

Nebraska 

Monetary

1,426

104

12.10%

6.08%

8.68%

4.89%

Nebraska 

Separation

14,705

107

9.27%

5.49%

6.50%

4.78%

Nebraska 

Nonseparation

14,580

106

18.84%

7.86%

13.68%

6.81%

New Hampshire 

Monetary

592

114

19.30%

7.22%

13.06%

5.79%

New Hampshire 

Separation

1,604

116

9.83%

5.70%

1.70%

2.28%

New Hampshire 

Nonseparation

6,119

116

6.97%

4.88%

5.22%

4.21%

New Jersey 

Monetary

19,650

103

13.85%

6.18%

8.75%

5.06%

New Jersey 

Separation

34,197

111

10.01%

5.68%

5.51%

4.45%

New Jersey 

Nonseparation

36,051

110

9.65%

6.06%

6.21%

4.60%

New Mexico 

Monetary

2,111

100

45.01%

11.74%

41.34%

11.66%

New Mexico 

Separation

4,911

108

14.69%

7.05%

7.64%

5.11%

New Mexico 

Nonseparation

14,178

108

4.70%

3.83%

3.60%

3.52%

Nevada 

Monetary

3,130

80

28.64%

10.12%

21.35%

9.27%

Nevada 

Separation

14,965

90

4.25%

4.34%

0.79%

1.55%

Nevada 

Nonseparation

16,796

89

7.41%

4.97%

6.43%

4.58%

New York 

Monetary

51,200

102

28.43%

38.06%

25.99%

38.02%

New York 

Separation

47,612

110

11.44%

5.65%

7.57%

5.28%

New York 

Nonseparation

108,440

111

11.15%

6.42%

4.74%

4.29%



BENEFIT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT 

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY 

IMPROPER DENIAL RATES REPORT 

Batch Range: 201927~202026

 

 

Type

 

Adjusted

 

 

 

 

 

Population

Cases

Improper

95% C.I

Improper

95% C.I

State:

Denial Type

of Denials

Completed*

Denial

(+/-)

Denial**

(+/-)

Ohio 

Monetary

18,162

105

16.93%

7.45%

11.09%

5.76%

Ohio 

Separation

23,851

105

9.46%

5.92%

5.91%

4.79%

Ohio 

Nonseparation

70,729

105

12.42%

5.78%

7.89%

4.77%

Oklahoma 

Monetary

6,699

115

5.76%

4.31%

4.81%

4.31%

Oklahoma 

Separation

13,819

121

5.78%

4.19%

0.00%

0.00%

Oklahoma 

Nonseparation

40,110

119

1.07%

2.09%

1.07%

2.09%

Oregon 

Monetary

5,921

107

24.40%

7.83%

15.73%

6.80%

Oregon 

Separation

14,017

115

8.84%

4.95%

6.55%

4.17%

Oregon 

Nonseparation

21,736

114

10.87%

5.47%

9.63%

5.28%

Pennsylvania 

Monetary

43,542

111

6.01%

4.08%

3.40%

2.80%

Pennsylvania 

Separation

44,229

113

16.44%

6.31%

10.44%

5.67%

Pennsylvania 

Nonseparation

97,037

116

14.47%

6.29%

11.00%

6.02%

Puerto Rico 

Monetary

1,998

78

28.51%

9.86%

17.80%

7.33%

Puerto Rico 

Separation

4,541

98

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Puerto Rico 

Nonseparation

8,712

88

2.80%

4.01%

2.80%

4.01%

Rhode Island 

Monetary

1,640

106

7.05%

4.95%

1.67%

2.07%

Rhode Island 

Separation

3,320

106

11.80%

7.13%

8.69%

6.21%

Rhode Island 

Nonseparation

4,749

106

4.71%

4.34%

1.50%

2.91%

South Carolina 

Monetary

13,697

113

4.51%

3.95%

3.66%

3.58%

South Carolina 

Separation

24,163

117

0.87%

1.70%

0.87%

1.70%

South Carolina 

Nonseparation

51,502

117

10.37%

4.04%

1.37%

1.95%

South Dakota 

Monetary

466

102

4.36%

3.52%

2.22%

2.23%

South Dakota 

Separation

1,477

104

5.57%

4.38%

2.93%

2.52%

South Dakota 

Nonseparation

2,112

105

2.92%

3.25%

2.11%

2.87%

Tennessee 

Monetary

6,756

101

9.75%

6.19%

5.77%

5.16%

Tennessee 

Separation

11,189

108

12.70%

6.34%

5.05%

4.11%

Tennessee 

Nonseparation

21,762

106

16.37%

7.87%

10.08%

6.06%

Texas 

Monetary

47,346

112

5.48%

4.37%

5.48%

4.37%

Texas 

Separation

111,939

115

7.64%

4.39%

4.40%

3.55%

Texas 

Nonseparation

160,979

115

2.52%

2.88%

1.69%

2.38%

Utah 

Monetary

1,925

106

6.14%

4.46%

6.14%

4.46%

Utah 

Separation

6,201

109

3.91%

3.52%

3.31%

3.31%

Utah 

Nonseparation

27,614

111

3.06%

3.01%

3.06%

3.01%

Virginia 

Monetary

5,036

92

17.28%

8.21%

4.06%

3.96%

Virginia 

Separation

18,715

111

10.26%

5.83%

10.26%

5.83%

Virginia 

Nonseparation

11,316

111

8.94%

5.57%

8.94%

5.57%



BENEFIT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT 

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY 

IMPROPER DENIAL RATES REPORT 

Batch Range: 201927~202026

 

 

Type

 

Adjusted

 

 

 

 

 

Population

Cases

Improper

95% C.I

Improper

95% C.I

State:

Denial Type

of Denials

Completed*

Denial

(+/-)

Denial**

(+/-)

Vermont 

Monetary

237

25

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Vermont 

Separation

914

42

9.08%

10.94%

4.32%

5.90%

Vermont 

Nonseparation

951

37

2.15%

4.13%

2.15%

4.13%

Washington 

Monetary

13,287

95

9.75%

6.11%

8.51%

5.61%

Washington 

Separation

20,616

104

13.46%

7.36%

12.12%

6.88%

Washington 

Nonseparation

72,502

104

21.90%

7.69%

16.65%

7.81%

Wisconsin 

Monetary

5,244

100

9.59%

6.42%

9.59%

6.42%

Wisconsin 

Separation

15,889

103

9.69%

5.20%

8.24%

5.92%

Wisconsin 

Nonseparation

61,402

107

20.83%

8.98%

20.83%

8.98%

West Virginia 

Monetary

939

98

18.33%

7.77%

15.31%

7.35%

West Virginia 

Separation

7,158

112

1.93%

2.68%

1.93%

2.68%

West Virginia 

Nonseparation

5,163

112

5.10%

4.57%

3.22%

3.66%

Wyoming 

Monetary

1,329

93

16.28%

8.54%

9.46%

6.72%

Wyoming 

Separation

1,289

103

9.04%

5.99%

6.92%

5.52%

Wyoming 

Nonseparation

8,163

103

7.04%

4.46%

7.04%

4.46%

Note: 95% C.I. is the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated rate. The interval is the range between the rate minus the value in the 95% C.I. column and the rate plus the value in the 95% C.I. column. For example, the interval for 10.0% +/- 2.5 is 7.5% to 12.5%. The true rate is expected to lie within 95 percent of the intervals constructed from repeated samples of the same size and selected in the same manner as the BAM DCA sample.

*Excludes cases not meeting DCA definition for inclusion in population, withdrawn claims, and claims for which monetary eligibility was established upon receipt of CWC, UCFE, and/or UCX wage credits.

**Adjusted rate excludes erroneous denials that were corrected by agency or reversed on appeal prior to DCA case completion.



PAID CLAIMS ACCURACY 

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Cases 

Cases 

Percent 

60 Day 

90 Day 

State

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

AK

361

361

100.00   

 77.01   

 82.83  +

AL

362

362

100.00   

 92.27   

 99.72   

AR

358

358

100.00   

 70.67   

 80.17  +

AZ

357

357

100.00   

 63.31  *

 91.32  +

CA

569

569

100.00   

 98.95   

100.00   

CO

336

316

 94.05   

 69.35  *

 88.99  +

CT

362

362

100.00   

 78.73   

 85.64  +

DC

359

359

100.00   

 86.91   

 97.21   

DE

270

270

100.00   

100.00   

100.00   

FL

357

356

 99.72   

 99.44   

 99.72   

GA

360

360

100.00   

 55.56  *

 83.06  +

HI

350

350

100.00   

 62.86  *

 65.71  +

IA

360

360

100.00   

 59.72  *

 76.11  +

ID

273

273

100.00   

 94.51   

 98.53   

IL

360

360

100.00   

 72.22   

 81.11  +

IN

333

333

100.00   

 71.17   

 73.57  +

KS

353

353

100.00   

 71.39   

 84.14  +

KY

374

373

 99.73   

 16.04  *

 24.06  +

LA

349

349

100.00   

 95.13   

 97.71   

MA

348

348

100.00   

 60.92  *

 72.99  +

MD

360

360

100.00   

 86.94   

 96.94   

ME

276

276

100.00   

 82.61   

 94.57  +

MI

348

348

100.00   

 74.43   

 79.02  +

MN

313

313

100.00   

 97.76   

 99.36   

MO

360

360

100.00   

 78.06   

 80.56  +

MS

369

369

100.00   

 69.38  *

 76.96  +

MT

270

270

100.00   

 84.07   

 90.37  +

NC

390

390

100.00   

 63.85  *

 92.56  +

ND

271

271

100.00   

 82.29   

 82.66  +

NE

269

269

100.00   

 93.31   

 99.63   

NH

280

280

100.00   

 91.43   

 96.07   

NJ

343

340

 99.13   

 76.38   

 83.09  +

NM

336

336

100.00   

 81.85   

 85.71  +

NV

350

276

 78.86   

 60.86  *

 66.00  +


PAID CLAIMS ACCURACY 

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Cases 

Cases 

Percent 

60 Day 

90 Day 

State

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

NY

440

367

 83.41   

 74.32   

 83.41  +

OH

340

340

100.00   

 58.24  *

 67.65  +

OK

368

368

100.00   

 98.91   

100.00   

OR

350

350

100.00   

 89.43   

 96.86   

PA

362

362

100.00   

 96.41   

100.00   

PR

366

338

 92.35   

 15.57  *

 31.97  +

RI

348

348

100.00   

 77.87   

 88.79  +

SC

352

352

100.00   

 75.28   

 78.98  +

SD

267

267

100.00   

 52.81  *

 76.78  +

TN

361

361

100.00   

 88.09   

100.00   

TX

407

407

100.00   

 90.91   

100.00   

UT

362

362

100.00   

 92.54   

 96.69   

VA

350

350

100.00   

 99.14   

100.00   

VT

146

91

 62.33   

 21.23  *

 28.08  +

WA

343

343

100.00   

 44.90  *

 62.39  +

WI

334

334

100.00   

 77.54   

 93.11  +

WV

356

356

100.00   

 97.19   

 99.44   

WY

270

270

100.00   

 64.07  *

 72.96  +







Note:

Time lapse has been adjusted for cases reopened with code '3'.

*

Failed to meet 60 day time lapse standard of 70% complete.

+

Failed to meet 90 day time lapse standard of 95% complete.


The Benefit Accuracy Measurement program was suspended due to Covid-19 epidemic excluding data for batch range 202014 through 202026. As a result case completion timeliness was negatively impacted


DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT - DCA

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Denial

Cases

Cases

Percent

60 Day

90 Day

State

Type

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

AK

Monetary

99

99

100.00%

86.87%

89.90%

AK

Separation

107

107

100.00%

87.85%

88.79%

AK

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

87.62%

87.62%

AL

Monetary

110

110

100.00%

93.64%

100.00%

AL

Separation

110

110

100.00%

97.27%

100.00%

AL

Nonseparation

112

112

100.00%

95.54%

100.00%

AR

Monetary

112

112

100.00%

73.21%

77.68% +

AR

Separation

112

112

100.00%

79.46%

89.29%

AR

Nonseparation

112

112

100.00%

81.25%

87.50%

AZ

Monetary

105

105

100.00%

89.52%

100.00%

AZ

Separation

105

105

100.00%

81.90%

92.38%

AZ

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

83.81%

96.19%

CA

Monetary

158

158

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

CA

Separation

159

159

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

CA

Nonseparation

151

151

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

CO

Monetary

108

98

90.74%

75.93%

88.89%

CO

Separation

110

102

92.73%

80.91%

90.00%

CO

Nonseparation

107

102

95.33%

84.11%

94.39%

CT

Monetary

116

116

100.00%

86.21%

88.79%

CT

Separation

116

116

100.00%

87.07%

89.66%

CT

Nonseparation

116

116

100.00%

84.48%

87.93%

DC

Monetary

108

108

100.00%

92.59%

98.15%

DC

Separation

111

111

100.00%

91.89%

97.30%

DC

Nonseparation

110

110

100.00%

95.45%

99.09%

DE

Monetary

127

127

100.00%

99.21%

100.00%

DE

Separation

115

115

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

DE

Nonseparation

116

116

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

FL

Monetary

114

114

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

FL

Separation

116

116

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

FL

Nonseparation

116

115

99.14%

99.14%

99.14%

GA

Monetary

117

117

100.00%

59.83% *

82.05% +

GA

Separation

117

117

100.00%

65.81%

87.18%

GA

Nonseparation

117

117

100.00%

65.81%

87.18%

HI

Monetary

107

107

100.00%

73.83%

76.64% +

HI

Separation

108

108

100.00%

68.52%

75.00% +

HI

Nonseparation

107

107

100.00%

73.83%

76.64% +

IA

Monetary

105

102

97.14%

73.33%

80.95% +

IA

Separation

105

105

100.00%

79.05%

85.71%

IA

Nonseparation

105

101

96.19%

77.14%

83.81% +


DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT - DCA

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Denial

Cases

Cases

Percent

60 Day

90 Day

State

Type

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

ID

Monetary

104

104

100.00%

93.27%

97.12%

ID

Separation

105

105

100.00%

98.10%

100.00%

ID

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

97.14%

99.05%

IL

Monetary

106

106

100.00%

83.02%

87.74%

IL

Separation

106

106

100.00%

81.13%

91.51%

IL

Nonseparation

106

106

100.00%

79.25%

88.68%

IN

Monetary

104

104

100.00%

81.73%

83.65% +

IN

Separation

104

104

100.00%

79.81%

82.69% +

IN

Nonseparation

104

104

100.00%

81.73%

83.65% +

KS

Monetary

113

113

100.00%

85.84%

89.38%

KS

Separation

115

115

100.00%

84.35%

92.17%

KS

Nonseparation

112

112

100.00%

83.04%

91.96%

KY

Monetary

115

114

99.13%

26.09% *

35.65% +

KY

Separation

115

115

100.00%

33.04% *

60.87% +

KY

Nonseparation

149

149

100.00%

48.99% *

83.22% +

LA

Monetary

111

111

100.00%

93.69%

98.20%

LA

Separation

111

111

100.00%

98.20%

99.10%

LA

Nonseparation

111

111

100.00%

89.19%

93.69%

MA

Monetary

105

105

100.00%

60.00%

71.43% +

MA

Separation

105

105

100.00%

58.10% *

74.29% +

MA

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

69.52%

76.19% +

MD

Monetary

119

119

100.00%

89.08%

95.80%

MD

Separation

116

116

100.00%

89.66%

98.28%

MD

Nonseparation

115

115

100.00%

84.35%

93.91%

ME

Monetary

114

114

100.00%

86.84%

98.25%

ME

Separation

111

111

100.00%

86.49%

96.40%

ME

Nonseparation

115

115

100.00%

91.30%

98.26%

MI

Monetary

102

102

100.00%

79.41%

84.31% +

MI

Separation

101

101

100.00%

81.19%

82.18% +

MI

Nonseparation

101

101

100.00%

86.14%

87.13%

MN

Monetary

94

94

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

MN

Separation

95

95

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

MN

Nonseparation

93

93

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

MO

Monetary

113

113

100.00%

80.53%

80.53 % +

MO

Separation

113

113

100.00%

77.88%

81.42 % +

MO

Nonseparation

112

112

100.00%

83.04%

83.93 % +

MS

Monetary

107

107

100.00%

78.50%

83.18 % +

MS

Separation

107

107

100.00%

77.57%

83.18 % +

MS

Nonseparation

107

107

100.00%

80.37%

84.11 % +

DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT - DCA

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Denial

Cases

Cases

Percent

60 Day

90 Day

State

Type

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

MT

Monetary

106

106

100.00%

92.45%

95.28%

MT

Separation

109

109

100.00%

89.91%

93.58%

MT

Nonseparation

110

110

100.00%

85.45%

91.82%

NC

Monetary

115

115

100.00%

73.91%

95.65%

NC

Separation

117

117

100.00%

88.03%

97.44%

NC

Nonseparation

117

117

100.00%

82.05%

96.58%

ND

Monetary

104

104

100.00%

88.46%

92.31%

ND

Separation

104

104

100.00%

92.31%

92.31%

ND

Nonseparation

104

104

100.00%

91.35%

91.35%

NE

Monetary

104

104

100.00%

96.15%

100.00%

NE

Separation

107

107

100.00%

96.26%

100.00%

NE

Nonseparation

106

106

100.00%

94.34%

100.00%

NH

Monetary

114

114

100.00%

92.98%

97.37%

NH

Separation

116

116

100.00%

99.14%

100.00%

NH

Nonseparation

116

116

100.00%

99.14%

100.00%

NJ

Monetary

109

109

100.00%

77.98%

83.49 % +

NJ

Separation

111

111

100.00%

80.18%

84.68 % +

NJ

Nonseparation

111

110

99.10%

88.29%

90.09%

NM

Monetary

107

107

100.00%

82.24%

87.85%

NM

Separation

108

108

100.00%

86.11%

89.81%

NM

Nonseparation

108

108

100.00%

87.96%

90.74%

NV

Monetary

111

90

81.08%

63.96%

66.67% +

NV

Separation

110

98

89.09%

73.64%

74.55% +

NV

Nonseparation

110

96

87.27%

70.91%

71.82% +

NY

Monetary

113

113

100.00%

92.04%

100.00%

NY

Separation

114

113

99.12%

92.11%

99.12%

NY

Nonseparation

114

114

100.00%

91.23%

100.00%

OH

Monetary

105

105

100.00%

63.81%

71.43 % +

OH

Separation

105

105

100.00%

66.67%

73.33 % +

OH

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

65.71%

73.33 % +

OK

Monetary

120

120

100.00%

98.33%

100.00%

OK

Separation

121

121

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

OK

Nonseparation

119

119

100.00%

98.32%

100.00%

OR

Monetary

115

115

100.00%

99.13%

100.00%

OR

Separation

115

115

100.00%

98.26%

100.00%

OR

Nonseparation

114

114

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

PA

Monetary

111

111

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

PA

Separation

113

113

100.00%

98.23%

99.12%

PA

Nonseparation

116

116

100.00%

99.14%

100.00%


DENIED CLAIMS ACCURACY

CASE COMPLETION AND TIME LAPSE REPORT - DCA

Batch Range: 201927 ~ 202026

 

Denial

Cases

Cases

Percent

60 Day

90 Day

State

Type

Sampled

Completed

Completed

Time Lapse

Time Lapse

PR

Monetary

123

100

81.30%

26.02% *

47.15 % +

PR

Separation

106

106

100.00%

37.74% *

56.60 % +

PR

Nonseparation

103

93

90.29%

28.16% *

46.60 % +

RI

Monetary

106

106

100.00%

62.26%

76.42 % +

RI

Separation

106

106

100.00%

70.75%

79.25 % +

RI

Nonseparation

106

106

100.00%

66.04%

77.36 % +

SC

Monetary

115

115

100.00%

76.52%

80.87 % +

SC

Separation

117

117

100.00%

77.78%

79.49 % +

SC

Nonseparation

117

117

100.00%

78.63%

79.49 % +

SD

Monetary

105

105

100.00%

52.38% *

73.33 % +

SD

Separation

104

104

100.00%

54.81% *

72.12 % +

SD

Nonseparation

105

105

100.00%

59.05% *

73.33 % +

TN

Monetary

107

107

100.00%

89.72%

100.00%

TN

Separation

108

108

100.00%

87.04%

100.00%

TN

Nonseparation

106

106

100.00%

94.34%

100.00%

TX

Monetary

115

115

100.00%

96.52%

100.00%

TX

Separation

115

115

100.00%

93.04%

100.00%

TX

Nonseparation

115

115

100.00%

94.78%

100.00%

UT

Monetary

111

111

100.00%

93.69%

98.20%

UT

Separation

109

109

100.00%

93.58%

96.33%

UT

Nonseparation

111

111

100.00%

91.89%

98.20%

VA

Monetary

111

111

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

VA

Separation

111

111

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

VA

Nonseparation

111

111

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

VT

Monetary

53

28

52.83%

43.40% *

52.83 % +

VT

Separation

58

42

72.41%

44.83% *

70.69 % +

VT

Nonseparation

62

37

59.68%

37.10% *

56.45 % +

WA

Monetary

107

107

100.00%

65.42%

81.31 % +

WA

Separation

104

104

100.00%

56.73% *

73.08 % +

WA

Nonseparation

104

104

100.00%

63.46%

78.85 % +

WI

Monetary

102

102

100.00%

77.45%

95.10%

WI

Separation

103

103

100.00%

83.50%

93.20%

WI

Nonseparation

107

107

100.00%

85.05%

94.39%

WV

Monetary

111

111

100.00%

98.20%

100.00%

WV

Separation

112

112

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

WV

Nonseparation

112

112

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

WY

Monetary

102

102

100.00%

71.57%

82.35 % +

WY

Separation

103

103

100.00%

75.73%

84.47 % +

WY

Nonseparation

104

103

99.04%

75.00%

82.69 % +










Note:

Time lapse has been adjusted for cases reopened with code '3'.


*

Failed to meet 60 day time lapse standard of 60% complete.


+

Failed to meet 90 day time lapse standard of 85% complete.


The Benefit Accuracy Measurement program was suspended due to Covid-19 epidemic excluding data for batch range 202014 through 202026. As a result case completion timeliness was negatively impacted




1 Some SWAs have updated the COBOL software edit and selection process as software programs and claimstaking processes have changed. ETA has published further guidance for states’ updating these systems and monitored system changes. See UIPL No. 25-20; web published https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=6819; June 15, 2020.

2 Offset of benefits are considered as being constructively received by the claimant.

B-9



File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File TitleJUSTIFICATION PART B
AuthorKari Baumann
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created2022-09-01

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy