1. Employers and States Working Together to Improve the UI Program
National UI Directors’ Conference & IT/Legal Issues Forum
October 3-6, 2016, New Orleans

2. Understand the successes
Session Takeaways
Understand the successes
Understand the challenges
Understand the importance
Consider best practices

3. Successes

4. Committed resources to support UI Integrity, employer compliance, and states’ UI program needs
Dedicated UC Government Relations team
NASWA affiliate member
UWC, Inc. member
AUTO member
Investment in technology and data solutions
SIDES
CaseBuilder
UI Cross Match

5. SIDES Currently Live in 45 Jurisdictions DC DE PR RI VIWA WA OR CA NV HI AZ NM TX OK AR LA FL GA AL MS ID MT WY UT CO ND SD NE KS MN WI MI MO IL IN OH NY PA NC SC KY TN WV VA ME ME MT ND VT OR MN NH ID WI NY MA SD DC DE PR RI VI WY MI CT PA IA NV NE OH NJ IN MD IL UT CA CO WV VA KS KY MO NC TN AZ NM OK AR SC AL AK TX MS GA LA FL
Already live ( 40 States)
Live by YE 2016 (9 States)
Not Participating (4 States *MA added)
State Information Data Exchange (SIDES)
EFX is ready to begin testing with states as soon as they are available
Need additional states to utilize the Monetary Determination file to expand use of Separation file (base period notices)

6. CaseBuilder is improving employer compliance and impacting UI Integrity
3,800 clients
125,000 live unique users
67% of activity handled through CaseBuilder

7. challenges

8. Challenges State UI System Modernization/Online Systems
Lack of collaboration with stakeholders
Lack of advance communication to employers/TPAs
No advance notice of UI form revisions
No phased-in rollout
Little or no testing prior to “go live”
No “Plan B”
Agency mandated use of online system

9. Challenges UI “Integrity Law” The problem
Wide variation in laws and regulations
Wide variation in processes among state agencies
Lack of communication in how state UI agencies will administer
Timely
(respond on or prior to the deadline)
Adequate
(answer all of the questions)
Compliant
(avoid pattern of failure & loss of charge relief)
2 or 2%
Pattern of Failure: defined by many states as the greater of two or more instances or two percent or more of claims within the prior year.

10. Arkansas, Texas, New York, North Carolina
51% of claims in preceding calendar quarter or 3 if total is ≥ 5
“Adequate” defined by statute
3 or more instances
No timeframe in the statute – once an occurrence is issued, it does not expire
Pattern of failure” not defined
2% or more of total claims in the prior calendar year
“Adequate” not defined by statute

11. SSN Challenges
Redaction or elimination of SSN on Employer/TPA- facing communications
Impacts accuracy and efficiency
Not limited to documents; some UI agencies no longer providing full SSN on rebuttal calls
28 jurisdictions currently truncate at least 1 UI document

12. Opportunities

13. Best Practices – UI System Modernization
Communicate
Advise employer and TPA community of your objectives before RFP
Notify well in advance: Let TPAs and employers know what is changing and what impact the new system may have on them
Include
Solicit feedback from stakeholders via UIAC or topic-specific meetings
Conduct trial data-runs, partnering with TPA or employer with a database that can challenge your system
Avoid roll-out of end to end system all at once
Educate
Offer new system training to employers/TPA s via webinars
Establish an employer/TPA “Hotline” number or address
Post information, updates and FAQ’s on website
Publish updates in your employer UI newsletter

14. Best Practices UI Integrity SSN General Clearly define “adequate”
Clearly define the time period (if “pattern” is included in regulation)
Ex: Calendar year, rolling 12 months from occurrence, previous 12 months….
Communicate which forms are considered a “request”
Consult with other state UI agencies, TPAs, and employers
SSN
Provide full SSN on all employer-facing documents
General
Have a TPA liaison
Publish an Employer UI Newsletter
Create an Employer UI Advisory Committee

15. Questions or Thoughts?? Lori Roberts lori.roberts@equifax.com