Denied Claims Accuracy Pilot Project: Follow-Up Report

Abstract

This follow-up report addresses several questions and issues surrounding the accuracy of denied claims for Unemployment Insurance (UI) that either were not addressed, or were addressed only in a preliminary way, in the Denied Claims Accuracy Pilot Project Final Report (Woodbury and Vroman 1999).Chapter 1 explores further the relationship between the findings of the Denied Claims Accuracy (DCA) intensive field audit and the scoring of denied cases under the Quality Performance Indicator (QPI) review.In each of the five pilot states, approximately 100 Separation and Nonseparation denials were subjected to both the DCA intensive field audit and the QPI review.These parallel reviews provide a rich source of information for examining the correlation between the DCA findings and QPI scoring.Chapter 1 reaches three main conclusions.First, the great majority of separation and nonseparation errors result from agency error or some kind.Second, erroneous separation and nonseparation denials that passed QPI were more likely to involve an issue that the agency could not detect, indicating that the DCA tends to pick up errors that the QPI misses.That is, the QPI tends to miss a significant subset of problems in the separation and nonseparation determinations processes.In particular, the findings suggest that that the QPI cannot detect errors that require new information, especially the type of information that would be obtained from interviews with claimants or third parties.Third, in addition to giving an upward-biased picture of the extent to which the determinations process is flawed (as discussed in the May 1999 Denied Claims Accuracy Pilot Project Final Report), the QPI understates the extent to which incorrect action is a problem and overstates the extent to which inadequate information is a problem.That is, although the outcomes of the QPI review and the DCA investigation point to the same main problems with the determination process, an administrator using the QPI alone would have difficulty correctly allocating resources to improving the quality of decisions made by adjudicators relative to improving the information on which decisions are based.Chapter 2 attempts to modify the QPI so as to mimic the results obtained by DCA investigations.The question addressed is whether the relatively inexpensive QPI review could substitute for the relatively expensive DCA audit.Several methods of modifying and adjusting the QPI are examined, including discriminant analysis.We conclude that, although the QPI could be modified so as to reduce the number and proportion of proper denials that fail, it cannot be modified so as to reduce the number or proportion of erroneous denials that pass.Under the best circumstances QPI is capable of classifying at most 41 percent of erroneous nonmonetary denials as failing.Chapter 3 examines two related questions.First, we compare the denial error i

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.