Private ui impact analysis 2017

THE PRIVATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
BUSINESS PLAN (2002)
Impact Analysis
By Shubhadha Iyer
January 9, 2017
This document presents an overview of Thought Leadership publications related to “Private
Unemployment Insurance” in USA with focus on the time frames 1980-2002 and 2002-2011. It
also provides the background and details on the Business Plan and USPTO application initiated by
the author, Shubhadha Iyer, March-April 2002 in USA. A formal Impact Analysis is then
conducted to further analyse the value-add from the author’s 2002 activity.

Private Unemployment Insurance Business Plan (2002) – Impact Analysis S. Iyer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................1
The Early Movers in USA: Before March 2002 ..................................................................................................................................1
March 2002.......................................................................................................................................................................................2
April 2002 until June 2011 ................................................................................................................................................................2
Significance .......................................................................................................................................................................................2
Points to Note ...................................................................................................................................................................................2
The Business Plan (2002) for Private Unemployment Insurance ..........................................................................................................3
Business Plan Structure.....................................................................................................................................................................3
Business Plan Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................3
Business Plan Highlights (Cont’d)......................................................................................................................................................4
Background of the Business Plan & USPTO (2002) ...........................................................................................................................4
Observations .....................................................................................................................................................................................4
Thought Leadership Impact Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................8
Points of Similarity ............................................................................................................................................................................8
Novelty..............................................................................................................................................................................................8
Analysis of Prior Patents in USA........................................................................................................................................................8
Thought Leadership (TL Value) .........................................................................................................................................................9
Conclusions on Impact of the Business Plan (2002)..........................................................................................................................9
Scope of this Study............................................................................................................................................................................9
Early Works: Publications 1980 - 2002................................................................................................................................................10
Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................................................11
Thought Leadership Impact Analysis (TLIA) Methodology© ..............................................................................................................14
Proof of Thought Leadership Activity..................................................................................................................................................15
Volume of Work (With Links) ...........................................................................................................................................................15
Disclaimers, Terms & Conditions.........................................................................................................................................................16
TABLES
Table 1 Activity Timelines for the Private UI Business Plan (2002) .......................................................................................................6
Table 2 Impact Assessment Matrix – The Private UI Plan (2002) - Metadata.......................................................................................6
Table 3 Impact Assessment Matrix – The Private UI Plan (2002) – Points of Similarity........................................................................7
Table 4 Points of Similarity (Text descriptions) ...................................................................................................................................13
Table 5 Proof of Activity......................................................................................................................................................................15
FIGURES
Figure 1 USPTO - Career Insurance (2002) and text of Product description submitted with it (below)-............................................11
Figure 2 Online View of White Paper Published May 2009 ................................................................................................................12
Figure 3 Author’s existing Yahoo group folder “SIFILES” (login required) with Private Unemployment Insurance” B Plan (2002)....12
Figure 4 Author's existing file folder showing "Private Unemployment Insurance" Business Plan (2002) ........................................12

1 | P a g e Private Unemployment Insurance Business Plan (2002) – Impact Analysis S. Iyer
INTRODUCTION
Even to an outsider, the story of how Private Unemployment Insurance evolved in USA is a truly
awesome and inspiring tale! Starting with some early attempts, then spanning two centuries of thought
at multiple levels— research and academic insights; a resurgent wave of awareness, and finally a grand
convergence of all the stakeholders to successfully implement it across USA. No doubt, this is one story
that people from all walks of life—young and old, can be feel proud of.
The author initially heard the news in 2013 from India, and felt very happy that Private UI had been
rolled out in USA, in 2011. And in 2015, wrote emails to some Press/Media channels in USA urging them
to make a documentary-type feature, tracing the entire evolution in USA with the historical background.
Surely it would make a fascinating story—about events that played out in real time and concluded with
complex Economic theories, actually being applied to work!...
In this document, the author now re-traces events related to the growing thought process for
Private UI in USA. This will be in the context of eminent articles and publications (policy-level, research
and academic) prepared by thought leaders in USA over the years; then the author will locate her own
contribution on this map, which was the Business Plan titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” (and
the corresponding USPTO stamped application filing) --created in 2002 by the author while in USA.
THE EARLY MOVERS IN USA: BEFORE MARCH 2002
1. Unemployment Benefits offered by some companies, trade unions and Joint-agreement plans, on a
voluntary basis were visible in the US in the 1930’s and even before; however, these programs were
not found to be consistent or durable. With the Social Security Act of 1935 the Federal-State model
of UI came into effect, and the era of “fragmented” private benefit programs faded out.
2. Journal publications from the 1980’s to 2000 indicate that government UI was being theoretically
examined from all aspects, with some papers of the time observing its limitations.
3. Relevant UI issues such as—Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard, Consumption Smoothing and
Optimal allocation were being analyzed.
4. In particular, we note the trend-setting impact of these prominent works in USA-- (M. Rappaport,
1992), (George C. Leef, 1997, 1998) that argued for the privatization of Unemployment Insurance,
analyzing its potential benefits for the economy, and the individual. The main issues and concepts
were examined at a level appropriate for policymaking and legislative authorities.
5. Early Works: Publications 1980 - 2002-- provides a series of representative online publications that
we counted during this phase.
6. In addition to private insurance, other solutions for privatization were also being considered in these
arguments, such as—the immense benefit of individual Savings Accounts. And there were academic
papers that analyzed some existing forms of private plans—i.e. employer-provided benefit plans
(e.g. employer-specific contracts and severance pay).
7. But in the latter half of the 20th
century until 2011, we see there was still no commercial
implementation in USA –i.e. no product or service offered on a large-scale that could be viewed as a
“privatized” system of UI (through private insurers and the capital market funds).

MARCH 2002
1. A USPTO claim and Business Plan titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” were filed/
prepared in NJ, USA in March 2002. The Business Plan focused on a model of Private UI to be
offered through private insurance companies based on a self-paid premium structure, clearly
specified with examples; moreover, UI’s ability to offset recessionary trends was noted.
2. As a follow-up to this activity, the same Business Plan was promoted in USA; shown to USA-
affiliated corporate authorities from 2003 to 2006; and later in May 2009, reformatted as a
White Paper (Feasibility Study) and published online.
APRIL 2002 UNTIL JUNE 2011
1. Various Journal publications continued to analyze the limitations of the Federal-State UI system,
further analyzing possibilities that included – Moral Hazard; and “Optimized UI” models.
2. We note the emergence of online articles at this time. Prominent News and online articles from
leading newspapers/magazines in USA- 2009 onwards, that focused on the potential benefits of
Private UI or involved “private unemployment insurance” in their discussion of UI-related
economic issues.
3. Some articles also examined Private UI from the employee’s viewpoint i.e. for public
consumption. Toward mid-2011, there are articles helping people understand the pros and cons
of taking up this insurance-- the same model to be offered through private insurers.
4. In 2011, the same model of Private UI was rolled out across most of USA.
5. Refer Table 2 Impact Assessment Matrix – The Private UI Plan (2002) - Metadata.
SIGNIFICANCE
1. The impact of “Early works” is evident from the firm theoretical foundations they established.
2. We consider the “later works”—i.e. online/news articles from 2009 to 2011, an indication of the
rising “awareness” and “popularity” of the Private UI model. Digitization was rapidly growing in
general, but these articles involved a major focus on Private UI, which is noted.
POINTS TO NOTE
The above events may now prompt the question—What type of writing could serve to bridge the
gap, between the high level 1990’s journal publications that argued for the privatization of UI; and
the news/ online articles that later examined Private UI from the consumer’s viewpoint?
Quite possibly, a “Business Plan” could have added that missing level of thought, given its
strategic marketing pitch to the business/investor/employer community with a “different” product-
based approach. This plan took stock of all the key issues surrounding UI in 2002; and the vast UI
background. In retrospect, the Business Plan (2002) provided a very clear snapshot of the favorable
environment for Private UI, as a viable business opportunity to be taken up by investors.

THE BUSINESS PLAN & USPTO (2002) FOR PRIVATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
BUSINESS PLAN STRUCTURE
1. The Business Plan titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” consisted of two components- the core UI
product + a Career Services and Placement Net add-on. The second concept was added by S.Iyer for the
Private Unemployment Insurance product line and specified in the USPTO statement titled “Career
Insurance” filed in March 2002.
2. The Private UI Business Plan (2002) prepared by Shubhadha Iyer is currently viewable at :
http://siyerconsult.com/private-unemployment-insurance
BUSINESS PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
The Business Plan for “Private Unemployment Insurance” (2002) served the following functions-
1. Proposed an insurance product “Private Unemployment Insurance” for the stated purpose of --
a. Funding a person's career recovery efforts at various levels, in case of unexpected involuntary
changes in one's career-- mainly the loss of one's job.
b. The core product is similar to unemployment insurance offered by the state, except it is a private
issue
c. Aiming to cover the needs of persons seeking additional insurance against potential job loss
and/or unemployment.
2. The Business Plan clearly and logically highlighted the following points to prospective investors-
a. Examined the pros and cons of the existing Unemployment (UI) system.
b. Argued the merits of a privatized model, considering the need to counteract recessionary trends.
c. Recommended Private Unemployment Insurance as the Solution for current times.
d. Proposed the Business Model for Private UI : Core Product + (Career Services and Placement Net)
3. Provided an “Overview of the Market Opportunity”, where the Market opportunity for Private UI was
highlighted—it stated,
i. “The current situation provides great market opportunity for new entrants in the
insurance industry, specifically private unemployment insurance companies to come and
capitalize on this evolving market trend.”
4. The Business Plan outlined certain benefits and costs associated with the Private UI Model:-
a. The core product idea or Business concept proposed in the Business Plan suggested an
“additional insurance” product.
b. The section “Benefits of the Model” suggested benefits as “percentage of their average salary...”

BUSINESS PLAN HIGHLIGHTS (CONT’D)
c. In the chapter “Private Unemployment Insurance – The Solution” section on “Costs associated
with the model” the Business Plan suggested a monthly premium payment structure; with a
pointed comparison between types of employer—e.g. construction jobs and government jobs, in
terms of relative premiums.
d. The Business Plan also outlined certain eligibility conditions to qualify for this insurance.
BACKGROUND OF THE BUSINESS PLAN & USPTO (2002)
1. The privatization concept and vision for UI and Private UI was discussed in academic papers in USA
before 2002. Online now, but in the under-digitized world of 2002 only a few of those thought
leadership works were accessible.
2. As it happened, the consultant S.Iyer did not refer to any prior works or papers in 2002; nor had she
subscribed to any research databases.
3. S. Iyer arrived at this solution through an independent analysis and assessment of the US macro-
environment; the approach being more from the “Job Search” and career services perspective. Of
course, she did also analyze the solution at the macro-economic level.
4. The resulting plan/concept statement (2002) combined job placement with the core Private UI
solution—based on the view that to be effective, private UI should work with robust placement and
career services geared to enable individual growth; even if that were achievable only between jobs
(when a person needs funds, skill development, and a super-efficient placement service).
5. Accordingly, the Plan solution came with a more advanced placement & career services component
for Private UI-- a “new” feature, as it was supposed to allow for privatization or an optimal mix.
6. After writing the concept statement for this Private UI model in March 2002, S.Iyer initiated the
business plan preparation, working with a Management Consulting company in New York (remote
work/ freelance mode) who conducted the entire background research for it.
OBSERVATIONS
1. Shubhadha Iyer’s Business Plan highlighted “private unemployment insurance” as a viable product
idea for USA.
2. Preparatory research conducted for this Plan in 2002 revealed that—journal papers and historical
works aside, a product of this type was not being offered on a large scale at the time. (Excluding
related categories- credit unions, workers’ comp., Employer-specific contracts)
3. In following years, the Insurance industry has witnessed a dramatic rise in activity and speculation,
along the same lines.
Shubhadha Iyer is happy to note that Private Unemployment Insurance has worked successfully in the US.
The Consultant has been a contributor and thought leader in Business, Management and IT most of her
career which she started in USA in 1996 after completing a Master of Science (M.S.) Engineering program
in Kansas, USA.

OVERVIEW- Author’s Work in Private Unemployment Insurance (Private UI)
Pls Note: - S. Iyer is happy that Private UI was offered in USA in 2011. This is NOT an attempt to “take
ownership” of the Private UI- concept or product.
 Shubhadha Iyer initiated a business plan titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” (March 2002)
while in NJ, USA.
 S.Iyer also filed a USPTO claim for it in NJ with product description/statement; and actively
promoted the Plan to the business community –i.e. USA-based entrepreneur networks
 The high-level academic papers on “Private UI” that existed prior to 2002 argued the pros and cons
at the level of legislators and lawmakers in USA. These early works had established the theoretical
foundation for the Privatization of UI in USA. However, there had been no working product/service
of this type in at least the five (5) decades before 2002.
 In contrast, S. Iyer initiated—a “Business Plan” for Private UI in 2002, at a time when there was no
large-scale commercial activity in this space, in USA. S. Iyer’s Business Plan took a product-based
view, clearly consolidating key points of existing thought, and also adding some new points. The Plan
pitched for investor attention including “new entrants”.
 In later years 2003-2006, the same Plan was shown to USA-related corporate authorities; and
Promotional efforts of this type continued intermittently until 2006. From 2007 to 2010, it was
published online on a few sites.
 In the decade following 2002, there was an increase in news articles and speculative activity – finally,
Private Unemployment Insurance was offered in 2011, in USA.
OVERVIEW- Impact Assessment of Business Plan for Private UI (2002)
 The Business Plan (2002)—was initiated just after the “early movers” (papers/publications) in the
Private UI space and nine (9) years ahead of the US product rollout (2011).
 Significant Points of similarity may be noted between the Business Plan (2002) and the Private UI
product offered in 2011.
1. Business Plan (2002) was titled: “Private Unemployment Insurance”
2. – pitched this idea as an attractive opportunity for private insurers, inviting “new entrants”
3. -- pitched the same product concept and premium structure as the Private UI product offered in 2011
 Based on several points of similarity, the USPTO product statement and B Plan (2002) were highly
accurate in terms of macro-level strategic analysis and the projected product design.
 It is entirely possible- the above Business Plan (2002) had an impact, in bridging the critical gap
between high-level academic thought and the commercial deployment of Private UI in USA. Now the
following Thought Leadership Impact Analysis Methodology© devised by S. Iyer considers several
factors that come into play when evaluating an Activity for Thought leadership.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Table 1 Activity Timelines for the Private UI Business Plan (2002)
Activity measured for Impact Timeline
Main
Activity
Initiation and Preparation of Business Plan titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” in NJ, USA
Filing of USPTO with the Concept Statement/ Product description for the above Plan in NJ, USA
March 2002
Activity
Differentiat
ors
- The Marketing pitch for Private UI was presented in Business Plan format in 2002.
- The Plan was then pushed out to the Business community (Entrepreneur/VC forum) in
USA in 2002. From 2003 to 2006 the initiator (S. Iyer) continued promoting this plan,
showing it to the Management of two (2) USA-related Companies. Then from 2007 to
2010, S. Iyer published the Plan/Paper online on several sites.
- Later, deleted it from all but 1-2 sites—currently viewable with online publication dates.
March 2002
2003 – 2006
May 2009-
2010
Table 2 Impact Assessment Matrix – The Private UI Plan (2002) - Metadata
Measure Value Explanation
Impa
ct
TL
value
“Thought Leadership Activity” refers to the Business Plan prepared for Private UI AND the USPTO claim Statement (USA, Mar2002).
“Commercial application” (“Event”) refers to the successful deployment of Private Unemployment Insurance (USA, 2011)
1
Time span between this thought leadership
activity and any successful commercial
application(s) that followed
5- 9 years
Thought Leadership activity involving the same
concepts with an early “head start” (> 7 years) is
considered relatively high in terms of “lead” value
High
The rule “Thought Leadership = High head start” can have exceptions. In this case, the “Privatization of UI” – the same central
theme/concept was analyzed and argued over the years so we observed that –the early works could have influenced or “guided”
later works. (Exceptions can arise in other cases, when— too many early works reduced the impact of each. Or if the central idea
proposed in the early works went through many changes --again, reducing the “Thought lead” value of early works. )
2
No. of online Publications in the given domain
AFTER Activity / No. of online Publications in
the same domain BEFORE Activity
12/7
Early activities conducted in under-saturated
markets are considered more visible, hence higher
impact than activities that followed later, in more
“crowded” markets
High
From online research we counted seven (7) Journal publications that argued the case for Privatization of UI in USA from 1980 to
March 2002 or focused on this topic. After March 2002 to Jun 2011 – twelve (12) online publications focused on Private UI and/or
involved discussions on “Private Unemployment Insurance” in USA (9 news or other articles + 3 journal publications).
3
Activity Differentiators: Methods used to
present or promote this Thought Leadership
activity
Online/
Emails to
networks/
Business
discussions
This concept was promoted in B. Plan format.
Emails about the Private UI B. Plan were sent to
high-level USA Entrepreneurs/VC Network with
100+ members in 2002, also later promoted to
USA-related corporate authorities 2003-2006
High
4
Mass/ Viewership count of online
publications of the Private UI Business
Plan/Paper (2002)
53+
Online sites where the Plan was published could
have had many views since 2009, but the read
counts were recorded only on two sites (see
Appendix Figure 4)
Low
5
Organizations that funded/ sponsored this
Activity
None
Sponsored activities can often have greater impact.
But this was an independent activity.
Low
6
Number of places this activity was cited or
referenced
None
Any official references to this activity should be
counted
Low

Measure Explanation
6
Points of Similarity observed between Ideas/ Concepts or
Features promoted by the Thought Leadership Activity (B
Plan 2002) and the successful commercial application
being considered (2011)
This involves a comparison between the originally proposed concept and
the commercial application that followed. Each key concept/feature is
evaluated based on Similarity and Novelty (newness). The final Impact
and TL value are rated based on the ‘New’ and ‘Similar’ values.
Idea/ Concept/ Feature being Compared Value Explanation Impact
TL
value
(i)
The B Plan (2002) and its proposed solution was titled :
“Private Unemployment Insurance”
[Note: We do not consider descriptive sentences e.g.
“privatized UI” or “privatization of UI” as marketing tags,
only the exact word match: “Private Unemployment
Insurance”]
New: Medium
Similar: High
This exact term was under-used in USA
publications. The B Plan (2002)
prominently featured it for USA. And
the 2011 product had the same brand
category Tags. Hence, Newness is
Medium and Similarity - High, with
overall impact “High”
High
Medi
um
(ii)
The B Plan (2002) provided an overview of the market
opportunity to potential investors, stating that “the
current situation provides great market opportunity for
new entrants in the insurance industry, specifically
private unemployment insurance companies to come and
capitalize on this evolving market trend”. (Findings from
Britain and Germany studies on Private UI were included)
New: High
Similar: High
The Private UI product (2011) was
introduced in USA by the Assura Group
of NY, Ltd. (founded in 2010)-- a “new
entrant” to the USA market
High High
(iii)
The B Plan (2002) proposed Private UI as an “Additional
insurance” product to be offered through private insurers
New: Low
Similar: High
The Private UI product (2011) –is a
“supplemental” insurance product
Medium Low
(iv)
The B Plan (2002) suggested a monthly Premium
payment and outlined certain eligibility conditions
including the candidate’s “stable employment record”.
New: Medium
Similar: High
The Private UI product (2011) offers a
similar premium and eligibility structure
Medium Low
(v)
The B Plan (2002) made a pointed comparison between
construction jobs and civil servants, to illustrate relative
premiums dependent on job type
New: Medium
Similar: High
The Private UI product (2011) premium
depends on the work state, industry,
salary and the selected coverage.
Medium Medi
um
For Premium and Benefit structure details we assume there was vast background knowledge and various sources of reference that
went in to define the product in USA–i.e. the 2002 Plan may not be entirely “new” in terms of premium/benefit specifications.
However, this Plan did outline parts of the premium structure clearly with a distinctive example --points that were also in line with
the Private UI product in 2011. Hence the “New” is considered “Low/ Medium” and final Impact is “Medium” on points (iii) – (v).
(vii)
The USPTO statement (2002) observed the importance of
privatized UI in “financial recovery” and the B Plan
argued for placing responsibility of job loss …in “private,
for-profit institutions” and the potential gains from this.
New: Medium
Similar: High
The Private UI product (2011) is based
on the same central concept and vision
Medium
Medi
um
(viii)
The B Plan (2002) also proposed a “network of placement
services that will commit to finding people alternate
employment”…” by adding various career-related
services, the private issue will offer a more competitive
advantage”.
New: High
Similar:
Medium
The Private UI product (2011) did not
involve a specialized placement services
model as outlined in the B Plan (2002)
Medium
High
Observing the limitations of job placement/search services, and the need for “reeducation” between jobs to facilitate a more
efficient “structural redistribution of labor”-- the USPTO and B Plan had designed the core private insurance product to work with a
more specialized career services/ Job placement model. This would work at the national level, and not just be state-specific.
Table 3 Impact Assessment Matrix – The Private UI Plan (2002) – Points of Similarity

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impact Analysis for the Private Unemployment Insurance Business Plan & USPTO (2002)
 The Thought Leadership Impact Analysis (TLIA) Methodology© has been applied for impact analysis.
POINTS OF SIMILARITY
The main points of S.Iyer’s USPTO & Business Plan (2002) were compared with the Private UI product
(2011) to prepare the Table 3 Points of Similarity.
a. The USA product (2011) was found to have at least seven (7) features “very similar” to the product
proposed in the Business Plan (2002).
b. Hence the Business Plan & USPTO (2002) demonstrate a high level of “alignment” with the vision,
concepts and structure that shaped the final product offering in the USA market.
NOVELTY
We measure the Novelty of points brought up in the Business Plan &USPTO (2002):-
a. As any document titled “Private Unemployment Insurance” in USA, 2002 could not possibly have re-
invented the wheel, the Business Plan did not detract from the central idea or premise by adding many
new features.
b. Even so, the Business Plan did have some “New” points -- the add-on “job placement component” which
addressed the limited scope of existing “job replacement/search” services, emphasized the need for
“reeducation” between jobs and for an “integrated network” of career services to work with Private UI.
c. The concept presentation/promotion format itself --the “B Plan format”, that allowed us to clearly
highlight the “Market opportunity” for investors, employers and employees. As part of its marketing
pitch, the plan also called for “new entrant” private insurers.
d. As a result, there are at least two (2) points-- b., c. above, which can be considered “High” in terms of
novelty in the Business Plan (2002). Of these, c. was also very “similar” to the commercial application of
Private UI (2011).
ANALYSIS OF PRIOR PATENTS IN USA
The Business Plan and USPTO (2002) had one (1) patent before (US Patent No. 6332125 B1, filed in 1998)
and two (2) patents after, in the same/closely related subject matter. Shubhadha Iyer did not refer to any
prior patents while preparing the Plan and USPTO in 2002. But to proceed with our accurate assessment of
thought leadership value, the following observations are made:-
a. The Business Plan & USPTO (2002) pitched the Private UI solution on the backdrop of relevant macro-
economic factors-- possibly creating a “higher impact” than an otherwise nuts-and-bolts product design.
b. The Business Plan (2002) considered “layoffs” and “seasonal employment” as part of “involuntary job
loss” scenarios -- this terminology being more reflective of the “mass” job-loss situations the Plan sought
to include in addition to individual cases.

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP (TL VALUE)
We measure the Thought Leadership (TL value) of points brought up in the Business Plan &USPTO (2002):-
a. The USPTO & Business Plan (2002) had a nine (9) years head start before the commercial deployment of
Private UI in USA (2011) which is considered somewhere in the “high” range for TL value. We have also
considered the Patent No. US20090150190 filed in 2008 for “Private Supplemental Unemployment/..”
CONCLUSIONS ON IMPACT OF THE BUSINESS PLAN (2002)
Based on this study we may conclude that--
a. We consider the first significant phase of Private UI “Early mover” activity from 1980 to 2001; and the
second significant phase of “News activity” that served to popularize Private UI-- from 2009 to 2011.
b. Prepared between these two phases, the Business Plan & USPTO in 2002 were positioned on all counts
to forward the main arguments and to convey an effective marketing pitch for Private UI in the interim.
c. The Business Plan & USPTO (2002) provided some “high-impact points” in terms of the marketing pitch,
market opportunity, and an emphasis on specialized placement and career services. The relevance of
the Private UI solution to the existing macro-economic environment in 2002 was also noted.
d. The Business Plan and USPTO (2002) activity though preceded by a few prior works in USA, still had—
(i) Sufficient differentiators and was (ii) well-positioned on the timeline-- to create an “impact” at the
business level.
e. Refer the Time series of events and activities after/before March 2002 in the Private UI domain.
Figure 1 Time Series of Activities in Private UI, USA
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
i. For this study we primarily focused on USA journal publications, News and online articles to assess
the activity levels in USA. (We provide here only the Early Works: Publications 1980-2002 listing).
ii. Works outside of USA were not specifically counted for this study. But a general view of News
articles toward 2009 (E.g. on “job loss” insurance) does indicate higher levels of interest --worldwide,
in the area of- “Private Unemployment Insurance”, not just in US but other countries as well.
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Publications B Plan News Product
Private UI
Early Movers (Publications)
B Plan
News

EARLY WORKS: PUBLICATIONS 1980 - 2002
i. “Unemployment Insurance: A Case for a Private System” Sniderman, M. S., Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Economic
Review, 19-32. (1980)
ii. “On layoffs and unemployment insurance” Topel, Robert. American Economic Review 74:541-59, 1983.
i. “Paying People Not to Work: The Unemployment Insurance System” (Policy Report No. 133) Thorne, R. P. Dallas, TX: The
National Center for Policy Analysis.1988
ii. "Using the financial markets to hedge the risk of unemployment in the offering of a private unemployment insurance
product" J. D. Haley, ETD collection for University of Nebraska - Lincoln. (Dissertation) Paper AAI9030121. Jan 1, 1990.
iii. "The Private Provision of Unemployment Insurance," Michael B. Rappaport, Wisconsin Law Review 61, Jan–Feb 1992.
iv. “It’s Time to Privatize Unemployment Insurance”, David Honigman, George C. Leef, Foundation for Economic Education
(article), September 1995
v. "Unemployment Insurance and Precautionary Saving," Eric M. Engen and Jonathan Gruber, National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper no. 5252, September 1995, p. 1.
vi. “Unemployment Insurance, Consumption Smoothing and Private Insurance: Evidence from the PSID and CEX”, J. Gruber,
MIT and NBER, August 1996
vii. “Economic efficiency and mixed public/private insurance”, Blomqvist, Ake and P.O. Johannson Journal of Public
Economics 66: 505516. (1997).
viii. “It’s Time to Privatize Unemployment Insurance”, George C. Leef, J.D., Public Research Institute, Vol. 4, Number 21,
September 1997
ix. “Unemployment Compensation” The case for a free Market Alternative by George C. Leef, 1998
x. "Unemployment Insurance Savings Accounts," Martin Feldstein and Daniel Altman, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Working Paper 6860, December 1998.
xi. “Endogenous Adverse Selection and Unemployment Insurance”. The Journal of Political Economy, 106 (4), 806-827. Chiu,
W. H., & Karni, E. (1998, Aug).
xii. “Social Insurance and Economic Security”, (book) George E. Rejda, 6
th
Edition, 1999
xiii. “Moral hazard, optimal unemployment insurance, and experience rating” Cheng Wang, Stephen D. Williamson, Journal
of Monetary Economics 49 (2002) 1337–1371; Received 26 April 2000
xiv. “The final instance - Unemployment Insurance going private?” A study of a future social security scenario in the UK and
Germany, The Year 2000 International Research Conference on Social Security Helsinki, 25-27 September 2000
xv. “Private Unemployment Insurance: Full Employment and Severance Pay Mechanics” Parsons, Donald O. George
Washington University. (March 2001)
xvi. “Unemployment Insurance under Moral Hazard and Limited Commitment: Public vs. Private Provision” by Jonathan P
Thomas (University of Edinburgh) Tim Worrall (Keele University) Date First version: August 2000. Revised: March 2002,
October 2002
xvii. “Optimal Unemployment Insurance with Unobservable Savings”. Werning, I., Mimeo. University of Chicago. 2002
The above is a selection of prominent publications/articles/reports that—(i) involved high-impact arguments for the
privatization of UI at the level of policy and regulations in the US and/or (ii) academic papers that examined “Private
UI” conceptual models in the context of UI, and/or (iii) provided a comprehensive analysis of UI issues. This is not
meant to be a complete listing as Publications/ reports concerning UI issues were available even before the 1970’s.
The focus here is on USA papers from 1980-2002 (a few UK papers included). We consider these works to represent
the “early movers” phase of thought leadership, a few decades ahead of the deployment of Private UI (2011) in the
US.

Appendix
Figure 2 USPTO - Career Insurance (2002) and text of Product description submitted with it (below)-
This Disclosure concerns a financial services product termed "Career Insurance" in the Insurance
industry.
This is an insurance service provided for funding a person's career recovery efforts at various levels, in
case of unexpected involuntary changes in one's career-- mainly the loss of one's job. It will involve not
just financial recovery, but also a network of placement firms that will commit to finding qualified people
alternate employment. The insurance rate will be based on various factors, for example if the person
has an inconsistent employment record, etc. it will be higher.
Many of the underlying business models for this service would be analogous to those for primary
insurance offerings like Auto/ Health Insurance, etc. The core product is similar to unemployment
insurance offered by the state, except it is a private issue -- by adding various highly useful career-
related services; the private issue will offer a more competitive advantage.
.
Figure 3 Business Plan statement, also the USPTO Concept Statement or Product Description prepared and submitted by Shubhadha Iyer
(2002)
This above USPTO description was filed in March 2002 to mark the date/time of initiation of the Business Plan “Private Unemployment
Insurance”. After filing the above, the initiator Shubhadha Iyer had to return to India and could not proceed with remaining steps of the
Patent application.

Since 2007, the “Private Unemployment Insurance” B Plan has been re-formatted as a White Paper and published online (same
title). Only two sites (existing) are shown here, but from 2007 to 2010 it was published on other sites as well.
While posting the paper online, some documents were re-labeled “Career Insurance” to minimize over-exposure of the actual
product line that was being proposed- “Private Unemployment Insurance”. (The document title remained the same.)
Figure 4 Online Views of Plan/White Paper Published since May 2010 (http://bit.ly/2jTdtss) and May 2009 (http://bit.ly/1Yuubh3)
Figure 6 Author's existing file folder showing "Private Unemployment Insurance" Business Plan (2002) - same document as above.
The above B Plan and White Paper can now be viewed on - http://www.siyerconsult.com/private-unemployment-insurance
Figure 5 Author’s existing Yahoo group folder “SIFILES” (login required) with Private Unemployment Insurance” B Plan (2002)

Excerpt from Business Plan initiated and co-prepared
by Shubhadha Iyer (2002)
Description used in INCOMEASSURE.COM INCOMEASSURE Source
URL
1
Business Plan proposed an insurance product in the line
of “Private Unemployment Insurance”
Income assure is described as “Private unemployment
insurance”
https://incomeassure.com/
2
Investors are hereby offered shares in Company Name
(“The Company”), developing a unique insurance product
(“The Product” or “Private Unemployment Insurance” or
“Career Insurance”), aiming to cover the needs of persons
seeking additional insurance against potential job loss
and/or unemployment.
Income Assure is offered as
“supplemental unemployment insurance”
3
This is an insurance service provided for funding a
person's career recovery efforts at various levels, in case
of unexpected involuntary changes in one's career--
mainly the loss of one's job.
“In the event of involuntary unemployment, Income
Assure will restore you to 50% of your former wages,
providing financial protection and peace of mind.”
brochure/
4
The unique differentiator of the product- it would be
offered by private organizations i.e. Insurers, as a
departure from the Government model.
“Income Assure is offered by private Insurers “(initially,
Assura group of New York in 2011).
5
The Business Plan observed the value of UI benefits in
buffering Recessionary conditions: “Besides helping
unemployed individuals and families transition from one
job to another, unemployment insurance (UI) acts as an
automatic economic stabilizer. In a recession, UI benefits
offset some of the effects of job losses on a community's
spending power.”
“As the unprecedented economic impact of the Great
Recession has demonstrated, many of us have few
options for weathering prolonged job loss”…
brochure/
6
The Business Plan stated certain conditions to decide
the rates- as stated in Costs associated with the Model
section,
“Premiums will depend on the type of employer.
Again, to use the example of construction companies,
unemployment insurance premiums will be higher for
construction company employees, than they will be for
civil servants”
Monthly premiums vary by state, occupation and
income level, here are some examples for workers in
the state of Maryland with an annual salary of
$60,000:
Construction: $62.20 per month
Leisure and Hospitality: $39.73
Manufacturing, Durable Goods: $37.35
Financial Activities: $20.17
Education and Healthcare Services: $15.05
Public Administration: $12.23
 Obviously, the monthly premiums are risk-adjusted
by industry based on the chances that workers will
lose their jobs, with construction workers having a
much greater chance of unemployment (and a much
higher monthly premium) than public administration
(translation = government job).
http://mjperry.blogspot.in
/2011/07/markets-in-
everything-
supplemental.html
(This extract is from a Blog
article in 2011 describing
product features of
Income Assure)
7
In the section on “Costs associated with the model”
the Business Plan suggested a monthly premium
payment structure and certain eligibility conditions as
follows-
 “To qualify for UI, a person must establish a stable
employment record.”
 “The insurance company may take up to two
weeks to investigate the circumstances...”
This is a similar concept to the Income Assure policy
which states that:-
To be eligible, a person must be a full-time on-
staff employee…”Cannot have collected state
benefits or been involuntarily unemployed in the
last 12 months. Must have been at current
employer for at least six months… Other criteria
may apply.”
“There is a mandatory elimination (waiting)
period of two weeks for any new claim.”
http://www.cutimes.com/
2012/05/09/united-
nations-fcu-cuso-rolls-out-
private-unemploy
https://www.incomeassur
e.com/faq/
Table 4 Points of Similarity (Text descriptions)

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP IMPACT ANALYSIS (TLIA) METHODOLOGY©
Copyrighted by Shubhadha Iyer ©2017
PURPOSE
The methodology aims to accurately evaluate and rate an “Activity” in terms of its impact in a given domain. The
Activity is evaluated based on the criteria- Thought Leadership or “TL” value; and its ability to “Impact” other activities
or events that happened after it. For current application the analysis is conducted after the activity has occurred; and
involves a “before/after” comparative study of the specified environment.
GENERAL EXPLANATION
1. The method seeks to clarify - How was this Activity positioned to create an impact in terms of-- novelty of the
main idea and related concepts, activity head start, its predictive span, ability to generate interest (based on
relevance of concepts or other specified factors) and ability to affect other activities/events. Based on the results,
the “TL value” and type/level of “Impact” are estimated.
2. Rules are fairly straightforward- involving a High/Medium/Low rating. The methodology can be extended and
quantitative models added (based on author S.Iyer’s permission).
3. For assessment we study the Timeline of events before and after this Activity; we consider Activity parameters
(e.g. - how was it conducted) and the Points of Similarity between this activity and later event(s).
4. “Impact” criterion measures the probability that an activity affected or influenced later activities or event(s).
a. Tracks the common features/functions between this activity and later activities/events.
b. Considers related factors such as— ability to draw attention based on activity differentiators e.g.
- channels of promotion; citations/ references or other official uses of the activity.
5. We assume the activity could have impacted later events directly or indirectly--E.g. the activity may have set off
general awareness or trends in a given direction that led to intermediate activities (“chain reaction” / “cascade”)
and these in turn triggered the final event. We are not usually concerned with the details of this mechanism.
6. Another metric, the “TL value” rates the activity based on its location in the Thought Leadership value chain. It
considers factors such as—activity head start, and novelty of the ideas/concepts forwarded.
7. Event Timeline Scenario: We consider Activity A1 with other activities and events on a time scale.
a. Based on the “thought leadership scale”, an “early activity” that happened 10 years ahead is
considered higher “TL value” than another activity 7 years ahead. That is the case when a chain of
activities propagates the same theme/idea.
b. Early activities are typically more visible/ prominent with fewer competitors. As the market gets
crowded, later activities must compete for TL value. But exceptions are possible to this rule and
in addition to time series, the scatter/ density of events must be analyzed for alternate scenarios.
c. Other factors can offset the “head start effect”. For example, a later activity if promoted by an
influential group may score lower on the TL scale, but higher on impact.
8. Points of Similarity: In the context of the central idea proposed by Activity A1 we study sub-concepts/related
ideas that later activities/ events have in common with A1. This could involve a point-wise comparison of product
features. Each concept/feature is compared across activities/events for-- novelty and similarity.
9. A concept is assessed to see if it is “New” or “Similar” to the later event/activity. Based on the outcome, the
overall “Impact” and “TL value” are rated. Points that stand out in terms of “novelty” (New: High) as explained
above are also bound to have a high “TL value”, as a “new” concept invariably demonstrates thought leadership.

PROOF OF THOUGHT LEADERSHIP ACTIVITY
Table 5 Proof of Activity
Volume of Work (With Links)
Business Plans/ Papers with original creation dates (2002)
Yahoo Groups Files Folder: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SIFiles/files
(First step, Login to yahoo.com with userid: sifiles1, passwd: group123 then access above link in browser)
Archived Email excerpts from S. Iyer concerning Private UI (termed as: “Career Insurance” for USPTO) in 2002:
On Google Docs: - http://bit.ly/2k2FOAr
Title of work URL Originally Prepared And
Promoted
Earliest Online
Publish Date
On each site
Latest Online
Format
Private Unemployment
Insurance
http://bit.ly/1Yuubh3
(preview)
http://bit.ly/2jTdtss
http://bit.ly/2hp0lMM
March 2002 (USA) May 2009
May 2010
2011
Business Plan
reformatted as
White Paper
Business Plan
White Papers & Business Plans (online copies of previous original works by S.Iyer in 2000-2002 and 2011-2013)
White Papers by Shubhadha Iyer http://siyerconsult.com/white-papers
Business Plans and White Papers http://bit.ly/2hkaZEi
Online Presentations by Shubhadha Iyer (2013 - 2015)
Private Unemployment Insurance http://bit.ly/PrivateUI
About Private UI- Proof of Thought Leadership in 2002 http://bit.ly/PrivateUI2
Shubhadha Iyer Management Career Bio http://bit.ly/SiyerBio
Management Consulting Experience https://youtu.be/-pMdVfGlhAk
PROOF OF ACTIVITY IN PRIVATE UI (2002) BY THE CONSULTANT S.IYER DATE
1 Yahoo groups Files folder shows the Private UI Plan uploaded with 2002 date/time. 2002
2 A “product/ concept statement” for Private UI was written by S. Iyer and provided to the Management
Consulting Company in USA that accomplished the background research and wrote the B Plan in 2002
(online/ freelance mode). S. Iyer then added sections on Career & Placement services. The USPTO filing
with the same product/ concept statement is viewable in the Abstract of the B Plan itself.
MARCH 2002
3 Emails (with 2002 date/time stamps) to Entrepreneur network promoting the Private UI concept, the
Business Plan prepared for it, and its potential benefits for USA investors.
2002
4 Plan currently viewable online -- book publishing site with preview and published date MAY 2009-2010
5 Managers at companies (where S. Iyer had worked as offshore BA) to whom the Business Plan was shown
-- TCS (2003) and Curam Software (2006).
2003-2006

S.IYER’S USPTO (2002) –CONCEPT AND VISION WITH MORE RECENT ACTIVITIES (2014)
Consultant S.Iyer’s USPTO Statement (2002) had proposed Private UI as a “Financial Services” product, having
recognized the potential of an Add-on Benefit to PUI in the line of “Career and Placement Services”©.
Since then, S.Iyer was developing this “add-on component” idea in her spare time, and more recently
in 2014—documented these innovative design approaches in a Provisional Patent Application (PPA) (S.Iyer as
the inventor). Provided below is a summary of this invention; further details can be provided upon request.
PPA DETAILS – CAREER AND PLACEMENT SERVICES (CPS) --Filed by Shubhadha Iyer in January 2014
An overview of the latest Invention proposed by Shubhadha Iyer: A Financial product that provides coverage
for expenses related to “Career and Placement Services” (referred to as “CPS”) for working professionals in
between-job situations.
 A Provisional Patent Application (PPA) with detailed product description has been filed before the
Indian Patent Office by the patent agent (Application: 351/CHE/2014 dated Jan 2014, applicable in USA
and other countries). .
 While solutions for re-employment have been suggested over the years, this product is one such
solution to accelerate the process of “re-employment”, career recovery and career growth. It would
act as a method to counter the risk of prolonged unemployment; and enable the optimized re-
distribution of work force in a given economy.
 Essentially, if implemented as an add-on to PUI the CPS product would work to reduce UI payouts.
 There are a number of alternate formats outlined for a company to offer the product- it can be a
standalone product (fund); or an add-on (to job-loss insurance or even a disability insurance policy).
 Candidate-focused career services-- between-jobs re-training and placement are required for a variety
of events in addition to standard “involuntary job loss/layoff”. There are ambitious individuals who
want to make career moves and locate the right placement; or, those who cannot get unemployment
insurance but still want expense coverage for career growth/ recovery between jobs.
 CPS is designed as a flexible product to work for a range of voluntary or involuntary job loss scenarios
with the following features (as envisioned by S.Iyer in January 2014):-
 An effective method to facilitate re-employment as a financial product working with insurance.
 In an alternate embodiment, CPS can work as a Savings plan for re-training and placement.
 Can be offered as a “Network-based service model” --an integrated placement network
catering to specialized career needs; and spanning multiple states/geographies.
 Will cater to different segments of the work force, including higher age groups.
Re-assessment and feasibility study of the US market is required to finalize the product design. In an effort to
present and discuss this idea with USA companies, consultant S.Iyer had sent a summary description of the
above PPA to the President CPCU, Sterling Risk, New York in February 2014. A request was made for
discussion with them over this idea and/or any other consulting projects that S.Iyer could take up for USA
companies. The consultant has not been called for any discussions so far; but continues to be interested in
taking up high-level consulting projects for USA.

DISCLAIMERS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
 The consultant feels happy and proud that her Business Plan & USPTO activity (2002) supported and
participated in the actual progression of events for Private Unemployment Insurance in USA.
 As far back as 1998, S.Iyer had written USA companies about her extreme interest in taking up
Management Consulting and Business Analysis projects. Till date, the consultant has not received any
project work from USA at the level that she seeks.
1. In this document, the “consultant” Shubhadha Iyer (author of this document, also referred to as “S.Iyer”)
aimed to highlight works of Thought Leadership and to provide details on her (independently initiated)
work in the field of Private Unemployment Insurance in USA.
2. For the purpose of Impact Analysis, a comparative analysis of similar works in USA was essential to this
document. Importance was given to the time frame of past events and a background study of the market
landscape.
3. Based on information herein, the consultant does claim to have initiated and prepared work on the above
subject, at a given time in advance of other events that took place. The consultant also claims this work
was very similar to the later works in USA.
4. In doing so, there is no attempt to disturb, interfere or cause inconvenience to any of the existing
products/systems in this domain, or to raise any issues concerning early or later works in USA.
5. This information cannot be used as commentary or feedback on any of the products/ systems or events
being compared with or discussed in this document.
6. This information CAN only be used to factually verify and to endorse the consultant’s claims regarding her
own work of thought leadership.
7. The consultant can provide verifiable proof of her work in the form of offline/online documents and other
material as mentioned herein, and authentic archived email records.
8. The consultant sent emails to Entrepreneurs/ VC networks in USA to promote the concerned work which
can be verified without disclosing confidential or personal information about recipients. This Proof exists
for verification of-- the date/time of the consultant’s work; and the macro-economic analysis performed
by S.Iyer to arrive at this solution, viewable in the text of her emails.
9. Consultant S. Iyer did not receive any form of support or guidance in course of this work that she alone
initiated; worked on and completed in collaboration with the online/freelance USA resource that S.Iyer
had authorized for this purpose.
10. The aim of promoting this B Plan in USA (2002) was to demonstrate S.Iyer’s competencies for high-level
consulting in terms of—macro-level strategic analysis, innovative thinking and grasp of market trends. The
consultant sought professional contacts as a step toward locating future project opportunities—i.e. high-
level consulting projects from USA organizations.
11. The consultant S. Iyer also showed this work later to corporate authorities (2003 to 2006) with the same
objective—i.e. to be considered for USA-related project work onsite. And the consultant received positive
verbal feedback for this work.
12. The consultant observes that the above entrepreneur networks/ corporate authorities did not initiate any
direct action in the line of Private UI following her promotions in 2002. All the same, S.Iyer’s activity was
positioned to advance the Private UI thought process in an optimal direction for other USA groups.

Private ui impact analysis 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Private ui impact analysis 2017

Similar to Private ui impact analysis 2017 (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Private ui impact analysis 2017