ANNEXE IV: ANALYTICAL MODELS USED.... 3 2.ANNEX V: IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY LONG TERM CARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS......... 17 ANNEXE IV – Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment Several studies, using different analytical models and methodologies, have been used to prepare the impact assessments 1. When reliable quantitative information on the totality of impacts of the proposed initiative was not available, the analysis has been mainly based on a qualitative assessment of cross-checked criteria. Since options on the coordination of long-term care benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers and export of unemployment benefits had been assessed in 2013-2014, an update with more recent and newly available data has been conducted in 2015 2. A general point in terms of data limitations is that some statistical treatment are based on citizenship (Labour force survey) and therefore identify EU mobile citizens/workers (those living/working in another country than their country of citizenship) – while other data (administrative data collection) are based on headcounts of case where citizenship is not collected and that therefore constitutes a broader definition of mobility, i.e. Includes not only EU mobile citizens/workers but also nationals returning to their country of citizenship as well as third-country nationals moving between EU Member States.

Pro Scrapbook and Vinyl Cutter Software for Cutting machines, plotters and Engravers. Enroll in the new Sure Cuts A Lot 4 Classroom, providing over 2 hours of video. This page can be used to reset your serial number if you need to re-install the software again due to problems such as a computer crash/reformat where you were. You wish to deactivate to install on a different computer, you can choose Deactivate under the Help menu in Sure Cuts A Lot 2 instead of using this webpage.

This means that, at least for the treatments based on the administrative data collection, the Impact assessment adopts a broad definition of mobility and does take into account that not only EU mobile citizens benefitting from coordination but also other groups, which also means that there is therefore no underestimation of the phenomenon when using those data. Hereunder a detailed list of the analyticial models and methodologies which have been used by the different studies.

Coordination of Long-Term Care benefits HIVA The fact there is no specific coordination regime and a common definition, made it difficult to collect data on LTC. Member States did not explicit collect data on LTC and had no common understanding of LTC benefits. Administrative data on LTC are only available in specific forms dealing with the coordination rules of the sickness chapter. The number of those insured for health care living in another country than the competent country – which sometimes includes long-term care or to which LTC-insurance is closely linked – can be calculated based on the number of PD S1. However, no data are currently collected on the number of PD S1 within the framework of the Administrative Commission. The number of PD S1 was estimated by the sum of 3 categories: • Cross-border workers (and their family members); • Retired former cross-border workers (and their family members); • Other mobile pensioners (and their family members).

1 For a detailed description of the analytical models and the methodologies used in each studies, please refer to Annexes V-XIX, and XXVI Firstly, by way of using the LFS, the number of cross-border workers were estimated. Secondly, we assumed in the calculation model that 20% of the cross-border workers will have an insured family member.

Thirdly, to estimate the total number of retired former cross-border workers, we applied the percentage of cross-border workers on the labour market to the number of pensioners in 2013 and this by individual (former) working Member State and assumed that 1 in 5 retired cross-border workers always had worked in the same Member State of employment. Fourthly, an estimation of the number of migrant pensioners was calculated by using the LFS. Finally, we assumed in the calculation model that 25% of the pensioners will have also an insured family member. The sum of all these categories results in an estimate of the number of PD S1.

As next step we have estimated the cross-border expenditure on long-term care in kind and in cash based on figures from the 2015 Ageing Report. Here we have applied the average LTC benefits in cash and in kind per dependent user. It is as mobile citizens (workers, pensioners, their family members) are using this system of LTC as if they were nationals. This involves a ‘potential’ overestimation of the number of users of crossborder LTC benefits and the related expenditure due to fact some Member States consider their LTC benefit as not exportable. At the same time these estimates assume a complete ‘take-up’ of rights by mobile citizens which will not be the case in the baseline scenario.

Deloitte The data collection and analysis are focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States 3. The sample of Member States covers seven of the eight welfare state models 4 (given their similarities, the “new” Bismarck-oriented Mediterranean Member States –Malta and Cyprus- not included). The selection of the countries is primarily based on relevant mobility patterns and a balanced coverage in terms of types of the social security systems, more notably in the area of long-term care benefits. Cluster Main features Countries •. Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mediterranean related benefits, more in cash oriented, Greece countries at a lower level of social protection 3 The 14 countries retained, as indicated in the table, are: Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Poland; Luxemburg; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain; Slovakia; Sweden and the United Kingdom. 4 The fact that one or more States belong to the same welfare system does not imply that they will encounter the same problems in terms of the management of social security cases. The administration and the legislation in this area could diverge even within a specific model.

Cluster Main features Countries •. Unemployment benefits: coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers HIVA Based on Labour force Survey (LFS) data for 2013 and 2014, an estimation of the number of crossborder workers has been made. In the further analysis we considered all workers who worked in another country than the country of residence as cross-border workers. Workers who worked in a neighbouring country are considered as frontier workers. This is different from the legal definition. National unemployment rates from Eurostat were applied to the number of cross-border workers in order to estimate the number of unemployed cross-border workers. The unemployment rates of the country of last activity and not of the country of residence have been applied on the number of cross-border workers.

In order to estimate the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario, the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers are multiplied by the annual unemployment benefit per unemployed by taking into account the annual average duration of the payment of the unemployment benefit (on the basis of ESSPROS, Eurostat figures and the LFS). Deloitte The data collection and analysis are focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States 5. The sample of Member States covers seven of the eight welfare state models 6 (given their similarities, the “new” Bismarck-oriented Mediterranean Member States –Malta and Cyprus- not included). The selection of the countries is primarily based on relevant mobility patterns and a balanced coverage in terms of types of the social security systems, more notably in the area of unemployment benefits.

Cluster Main features Countries •. Bismarck oriented Evolving back to a corporatist welfare Romania, Bulgaria, South/East state regime, at a lower level of Croatia Mediterranean & 5 The 14 countries retained, as indicated in the table, are: Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Poland; Luxemburg; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain; Slovakia; Sweden and the United Kingdom.

6 The fact that one or more States belong to the same welfare system does not imply that they will encounter the same problems in terms of the management of social security cases. The administration and the legislation in this area could diverge even within a specific model. Cluster Main features Countries Balkan countries protection •. Unemployment benefits: export of unemployment benefits HIVA Figures for all EU-Member States on the export of unemployment benefits have become available via the administrative PD U2 Questionnaire launched within the framework of the Administrative Commission (for 2013). Additional data available for Belgium has been used to describe the impact of the prolongation period on finding a job abroad.

Finally, figures of Eurostat (based on the LFS) were used to calculate the average duration of the unemployment period. Unemployment benefits: aggregation of unemployment benefits HIVA (financial impact for Member States) Based on the data from the administrative questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment the budgetary impact of the current rules and the different alternative options could be calculated. Member States had to provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and a breakdown by length of insurance. The reported cases have been multiplied by the annual average expenditure per unemployed person (also by taking into account the annual average duration of the payment of the unemployment benefit) in order to estimate the public unemployment spending.

Option 4 (change of the calculation method) required more detailed information about the unemployed recent migrant worker’s salary. No information on the salary earned in the competent Member State as well as in the Member State of origin was collected via the administrative questionnaire. Therefore, wage data published by Eurostat have been used. Brodolini (costs for public administrations) The methodology for assessing the administrative costs and burden for the national administrations in the Member States handling cases of aggregation of unemployment benefits takes outset in the definition of administrative costs and burden provided by the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines. While doing this, we have adopted a broad definition of administrative information obligations – i.e. We have considered the costs of administrative tasks such as the determination of Member State of competence, the calculation of benefits, and the reimbursement and recovery of benefits in between Member States. In addition, we have looked into the administrative burden for the mobile EU- workers.

The calculations of the administrative costs for the national administrations are as illustrated in the below figure in principle simple. Firstly, the number of cases in the left-hand side of the figure are the annual cases currently registered in six case study Members States (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and the UK) – information that has been provided by the HIVA KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society via a data gathering exercise. In our main calculations, we assume that the number of cases does not change as a result of revisions to. However, we do to illustrate the sensitivity of this assumption also show scenarios where we assume a change in the number of cases based on the results of Task 3 and 4, respectively, of this study. Secondly, we calculate the unit costs for the national administration – i.e.

The current administrative costs per case as well as the changed administrative costs per case as a result of the EU revisions. Such administrative costs per case clearly differ between cases, i.e. There will be easy cases only involving standard administrative tasks while other more complex cases will involve additional tasks. Hence, we estimate in practice average costs.

Calculation of administrative costs for national administrations Most study resources were allocated to the estimation of the man-hours needed to carry out the administrative tasks. Such information is not available from official sources, and so we have gathered the information through interviews with national administrations in the six case study Member States. For this purpose, we identified the national administrations to interview, and we developed interview guides that was applied by our Member States experts/interviewers in the six case study Member States. It must in this context be acknowledged that most of the man-hour estimates are based on a few interviews only. This is partly because there is often only a few national administrations that handle cases in each of the Member States, and partly because of limited interview resources. Hence, the premise for this analysis and so its results is the uncertainty associated with few assessments that, furthermore, mostly are based on the subjective assessments of the interviewees rather than on actual registrations of time spent on different administrative tasks. Brodolini (secondary impacts) The simulations used in the study aim at translating the implications of the proposed revisions into expected income changes.

Assuming a connection between income differentials and the propensity to move among EU countries, a variation in mobility flows and in the dimension of the target population is estimated. Finally, taking into account the variation in the latter, the different level of benefits and the redistribution of competences between sending and receiving countries envisioned by the policy options, we give an estimate of the variation in expenditure for the aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits for the selected countries. The variation both in mobility and in expenditure, are estimated in relation to the status quo scenario.

This scenario is built on a virtual ‘baseline year’, with a defined level of mobility flows and a defined level of expenditure. The mobility flow is computed as the averages of the most recent values of annual bilateral mobility flows among the selected countries (7 MS for task 3 and 8 MS for task 4). The number of potential cases of aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits (the ‘target population’ of task 4) is computed by multiplying the status quo mobility flow registered from a given sending country to a given receiving country with the ratio of unemployed non-national EU28+EFTA individuals on the total number of non-national EU28+EFTA individuals in the given receiving country.

Then, the aggregate expenditure is estimated by multiply the target population identified for the average values of the benefits in each selected MS. It is assumed that the income differences observed in the status quo scenario – along with all other factors that the policy options do not have an impact on – generate the mobility observed in the status quo period both in terms of general mobility flows and in terms of dimension of target population. The influence of unemployment benefits on mobility is evaluated by calculating the change attributable to the various policy options on the amounts unemployment benefits paid in relation to the family income in the country of origin or in the country of previous residence. Once the income change is calculated, we convert that change into a potential mobility effect, using a theoretical assumptions on the elasticity of migration flows to income changes, which relates elasticity to income differentials for each bilateral combination of countries. As a measure for earnings, we consider the net earnings (PPS-adjusted) of a single individuals without children at 100% of the average wage. Once elasticity is computed, the percentage of income change is translated into a mobility percentage change. The percentage of mobility change is then translated into a change in mobility flows and in potential target population by relating the calculated percentage change to the absolute number of mobile citizens in the status quo case, according to the policy options proposed.

In order to define the expenditure variations, we compute the present level of expenditure by multiplying the number of present potential cases of aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits by the average amount of unemployment benefits. We then observe the percentage variation of expenditure – total and related to each bilateral relation.

FreSsco (legal analysis) FreSsco analytical impact assessment reports are based on the description of a specific problem of social security coordination and/or free movement of workers which arises in the application of EU law and which should be subjected to a legal analysis. Immediately after receiving and confirming the mandate, thorough consideration is given to the selection of the team of experts entrusted with the analysis of the specific legal problem, one of whom is selected as the team coordinator.

It is observed that their expertise is to the highest possible extent tailored to the subject matter of the analysis. In addition, two meetings between the experts are organised.

One is arranged at the beginning of the task, in order to get acquainted with the task and allocate the responsibilities, and another one before the final results are presented, in order to come to an agreement with the final text. If the deadline, set by the mandate, is too pressing, only one meeting is organised. Nevertheless, in both cases, i.e. One or two meetings, intensive communication between the experts is guaranteed and facilitated during the analysis, mainly by the internal coordinator and the FreSsco management.

Only by applying the dialectical method of testing various options, and confirming or rejecting ideas via discourse between the experts, can the best solutions be found. It goes without saying that better and faster results might be achieved when discussions occur inter preasentes and not inter absentes. Regarding the report itself, first the existing application of EU law to a specific cross-border situation is presented. To this end, the existing legislative and non-legislative documents as well as decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and other bodies (like the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems) are taken into account. The historical method might be applied in order to discover the reasons for the present legislative solutions. In the next step of the analysis several options – either enumerated in the mandate and/or discovered during the analysis – which might present a solution to a given problem are tested. Their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are stressed.

In some of the reports, for each of the possible solutions specific criteria are taken into account, such as clarity, simplicity, protection of rights, administrative burden and implementation arrangements, risk of fraud and abuse and potential financial implications. To this end, not only the relevant EU law is taken into consideration, but other sources as well. These might include relevant literature and academic studies, reports and selected key policy documents of the EU and possibly of other international organisations. Next to this comparison on an EU (and international) level, a vertical comparative method is applied in order to present the problems and test the solutions in (some or all, depending on the mandate) Member States. A horizontal comparative method at the national level is enabled by mapping the situation in several (or all) Member States.

Logical, grammatical and teleological methods of legal interpretation are relied upon as well. Conclusions are as a rule drawn from the descriptive-analytical method of the research, which might prove useful for selecting the best policy options at national and EU level and for finding the most appropriate normative solutions de lege ferenda. Export of family benefits HIVA (financial impact for Member States) Data of the administrative questionnaire has been used to report figures on the baseline scenario. Member States provided data on their export of family benefits and provided sometimes even more detailed data by the primarily or secondarily competence of the reporting Member State. By making use of the price level indices for consumer goods and services reported by EUROSTAT a correction coefficient between the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren) could be calculated in order to make an adjustment of the amount of exported family benefits to the cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren).

The scope of the administrative questionnaire was limited to the number of households and children who received a child benefit from a competent exporting Member State. However, for the calculation of one option (Option 3: Reverse order of competence) the complete reference group affected by the coordination of family benefits had to be taken into account. Also, more information on the average amount of the family benefit on the basis of ESSPROS was required as not all Member States had answered the administrative questionnaire. Brodolini (costs for public administrations) The methodology for assessing the administrative costs and burden for the national administrations in the Member States handling cases of export of family benefits takes outset in the definition of administrative costs and burden provided by the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines.

While doing this, we have adopted a broad definition of administrative information obligations – i.e. We have considered the costs of administrative tasks such as the determination of Member State of competence, the calculation of benefits, and the reimbursement and recovery of benefits in between Member States. In addition, we have looked into the administrative burden for the mobile EU- citizens and their families. The calculations of the administrative costs for the national administrations are as illustrated in the below figure in principle simple.

Firstly, the number of cases in the left-hand side of the figure are the annual cases currently registered in six case study Members States (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and the UK) – information that has been provided by the HIVA KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society via a data gathering exercise. In our main calculations, we assume that the number of cases does not change as a result of revisions to. Black Magic Little Mix Download Free.

However, we do to illustrate the sensitivity of this assumption also show scenarios where we assume a change in the number of cases based on the results of Task 3 and 4, respectively, of this study. Secondly, we calculate the unit costs for the national administration – i.e. The current administrative costs per case as well as the changed administrative costs per case as a result of the EU revisions.

Such administrative costs per case clearly differ between cases, i.e. There will be easy cases only involving standard administrative tasks while other more complex cases will involve additional tasks. Hence, we estimate in practice average costs. Calculation of administrative costs for national administrations Most study resources were allocated to the estimation of the man-hours needed to carry out the administrative tasks. Such information is not available from official sources, and so we have gathered the information through interviews with national administrations in the six case study Member States. For this purpose, we identified the national administrations to interview, and we developed interview guides that was applied by our Member States experts/interviewers in the six case study Member States.

It must in this context be acknowledged that most of the man-hour estimates are based on a few interviews only. This is partly because there is often only a few national administrations that handle cases in each of the Member States, and partly because of limited interview resources. Hence, the premise for this analysis and so its results is the uncertainty associated with few assessments that, furthermore, mostly are based on the subjective assessments of the interviewees rather than on actual registrations of time spent on different administrative tasks. Brodolini (secondary impacts) The simulations used in the study aim at translating the implications of the proposed revisions into expected income changes. Assuming a connection between income differentials and the propensity to move among EU countries, a variation in mobility flows and in the dimension of the target population is estimated. Finally, taking into account the variation in the latter, the different level of benefits and the redistribution of competences between sending and receiving countries envisioned by the policy options, we give an estimate of the variation in expenditure for the export of family benefits for the selected countries. The variation both in mobility and in expenditure, are estimated in relation to the status quo scenario.

This scenario is built on a virtual ‘baseline year’, with a defined level of mobility flows and a defined level of expenditure. The mobility flow is computed as the averages of the most recent values of annual bilateral mobility flows among the selected countries (7 MS for task 3 and 8 MS for task 4). In the definition of the tartget population interested by the proposed revisions we made use of the HIVA study (Pacolet et al., 2015), which allows to identify, for each selected country, the total number of persons entitled to the export of child benefits. Then, the aggregate expenditure is estimated by multiply the target population identified for the average values of the benefits in each selected MS. It is assumed that the income differences observed in the status quo scenario – along with all other factors that the policy options do not have an impact on – generate the mobility observed in the status quo period both in terms of general mobility flows and in terms of dimension of target population.

The influence of family benefits on mobility is evaluated by calculating the change attributable to the various policy options on the amounts of family benefits paid in relation to the family income in the country of origin or in the country of previous residence. Once the income change is calculated, we convert that change into a potential mobility effect, using a theoretical assumptions on the elasticity of migration flows to income changes, which relates elasticity to income differentials for each bilateral combination of countries. As a measure for earnings, we consider the net earnings (PPS-adjusted) of a one-earner married couple with two children at 100% of average wage. Once elasticity is computed, the percentage of income change is translated into a mobility percentage change. The percentage of mobility change is then translated into a change in mobility flows and in potential target population by relating the calculated percentage change to the absolute number of mobile citizens in the status quo case, according to the policy options proposed. In order to define the expenditure variations, we compute the present level of expenditure by multiplying the number of present potential cases. We then observe the percentage variation of expenditure – total and related to each bilateral relation.

FreSsco (legal analysis) FreSsco analytical impact assessment reports are based on the description of a specific problem of social security coordination and/or free movement of workers which arises in the application of EU law and which should be subjected to a legal analysis. Immediately after receiving and confirming the mandate, thorough consideration is given to the selection of the team of experts entrusted with the analysis of the specific legal problem, one of whom is selected as the team coordinator. It is observed that their expertise is to the highest possible extent tailored to the subject matter of the analysis. In addition, two meetings between the experts are organised.

One is arranged at the beginning of the task, in order to get acquainted with the task and allocate the responsibilities, and another one before the final results are presented, in order to come to an agreement with the final text. If the deadline, set by the mandate, is too pressing, only one meeting is organised. Nevertheless, in both cases, i.e. One or two meetings, intensive communication between the experts is guaranteed and facilitated during the analysis, mainly by the internal coordinator and the FreSsco management. Only by applying the dialectical method of testing various options, and confirming or rejecting ideas via discourse between the experts, can the best solutions be found.

It goes without saying that better and faster results might be achieved when discussions occur inter preasentes and not inter absentes. Regarding the report itself, first the existing application of EU law to a specific cross-border situation is presented. To this end, the existing legislative and non-legislative documents as well as decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and other bodies (like the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems) are taken into account. The historical method might be applied in order to discover the reasons for the present legislative solutions. In the next step of the analysis several options – either enumerated in the mandate and/or discovered during the analysis – which might present a solution to a given problem are tested. Their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are stressed.

In some of the reports, for each of the possible solutions specific criteria are taken into account, such as clarity, simplicity, protection of rights, administrative burden and implementation arrangements, risk of fraud and abuse and potential financial implications. To this end, not only the relevant EU law is taken into consideration, but other sources as well. These might include relevant literature and academic studies, reports and selected key policy documents of the EU and possibly of other international organisations. Next to this comparison on an EU (and international) level, a vertical comparative method is applied in order to present the problems and test the solutions in (some or all, depending on the mandate) Member States. A horizontal comparative method at the national level is enabled by mapping the situation in several (or all) Member States.

Logical, grammatical and teleological methods of legal interpretation are relied upon as well. Conclusions are as a rule drawn from the descriptive-analytical method of the research, which might prove useful for selecting the best policy options at national and EU level and for finding the most appropriate normative solutions de lege ferenda. Figure calculated in the interim report ** Figures described in detail in several chapters of this report *** No data for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO 4.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits In the next section, we present a number of basic tables on the number of cross-border workers (incl. Frontier workers) and recent migrant workers. Based on Labour force Survey (LFS) data, an estimation of the number of cross-border workers can be made (based on the question ‘What is the name and address of the local unit of the enterprise where you work?’ and variables ‘COUNTRYW’ (country of place of work) and ‘COUNTRY’ (country of residence) in the database. These LFS data were also used in another, recent report on ‘cross-border commuting’ 36. However, some interpretation problems appear.

While legally a distinction should be made between the free movement of workers and of services, this distinction is not made by this question in the LFS. The applicable rules differ considerably between cross-border workers and posted workers. Cross-border workers will be insured in their country of employment while posted workers are still insured in their country of residence. For that reason we assumed that the LFS question covers both cross-border workers (within the rules of free movement of workers) and posted workers (within the rules of free movement of services). Ideally, the LFS should make this distinction to avoid possible interpretation problems. In the further analysis we considered all workers who work in another country than the country of residence as cross-border workers. Workers who work in a neighbouring country are considered as frontier workers (as also is assumed in the report ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’) (which is not equal to the legal definition of a ‘frontier worker’) 37.

4.1.1 Scale of cross-border mobility of workers in EU-27 4.1.1.1 Number of cross-border workers Table 4 gives an overview of the number of cross-border workers 38 and frontier workers 39 in the EU- •. The average of 2010 and 2011 is calculated to avoid outliers. To guarantee reliability of the figures we only took into consideration the row and column totals of the cross-tables.

However, the 36 EC, Mobility in Europe 2011 37 See art. 1, (f),: “frontier worker” means any person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State and who resides in another Member State to which he returns as a rule daily or at least once a week. 38 For the purpose of the data collection, cross-border workers are workers who are employed in another Member State than the Member State of residence. 39 For the purposes of the data collection, frontier workers are workers who work in a neighbouring country. This is different than the definition in, according to which frontier workers are defined as workers who return to their State of residence on a daily or weekly basis.

Details in the different cells are important to estimate the baseline scenario and the different options (e.g. We need to select the cells which describe flows between neighbouring countries to define the number of frontier workers) 40. The national employment figures (living and working in the same country) are yellow coloured while the figures coloured in red are the neighbouring countries of a specific country. The table shows that on average 1 million cross-border workers are employed in the EU27 or 0.5% of the total employed population, of which on average 701.000 frontier workers are employed in a neighbouring country. This implies that 68% of the cross-border workers can be assumed as frontier workers.

These figures are similar to the results in the ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’ Report which reports “ that just 5 people in 1,000 of those employed commute across borders between EU Member States” and “ some 63% of cross-border commuters go to work in a bordering country” 41. In general, we observe an increase of the number of cross-border workers between EU-27 MS of 1.4% between 2010 and 2011 (see Table 81 and Table 82). The Report ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’ already observed this increase for earlier years (with a slowdown for more recent years).

Outgoing cross-border workers In absolute figures, most outgoing cross-border workers live in Germany (165 thousand), France (160 thousand) and the Slovak Republic (117 thousand). However, in terms of share in national employment (see Table 83), the highest impact is observed in the Slovak Republic (5.0%), Estonia (3.1%) and Belgium (2.2%). For Belgium (97%), the Netherlands (95%) and Ireland (88%) most of the outgoing cross-border workers are employed in a neighbouring country.

While for Romania (1%), Lithuania (5%) and Latvia (9%) few of the outgoing cross-border workers are employed in a neighbouring country. As Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013 it is interesting to look at the number of cross-border workers of this country. For 2011, 20.6 thousand outgoing cross-border workers from Croatia were counted primarily going to Italy and Germany (see Table 81). Internet Business Promoter 11 5 Business Edition Cracked Ribs on this page.

Incoming cross-border workers Most incoming cross-border workers are employed in Germany (186 thousand), Luxembourg (130 thousand) and the Netherlands (110 thousand). The highest impact of incoming cross-border workers on the national employment is identified for Luxembourg (37.4%), Austria (2.4%) and Belgium (1.4%). Most of the incoming cross-border workers in Luxembourg (99%), the Czech Republic (98%), Austria (94%) and the Slovak Republic (94%) are living in a neighbouring country. Only 6.6% of the incoming cross-border workers employed in Italy, 10% in Romania and 11% in the UK are living in a neighbouring country. A very popular country for incoming cross-border workers is Switzerland. In 2011, Switzerland employed 320 thousand incoming cross-border workers mainly coming from France (see Table 81 and Table 82).

4.1.1.2 Number of posted workers As it is possible that the LFS data also include posted workers in the number of cross-border workers, the profile of the cross-table of cross-border workers from the LFS is compared with this from the number of PD A1 certificates issued (certifies which social security legislation applies to the holder of 40 See information on LFS and its reliability in 3.2.7. 41- This 63% is calculated for the group of cross-border workers living in EU AND Non EU countries. This is a broader group of cross-border workers compared to our analysis. This was done by calculating the row and column percentages and indicating the 3 MS with the highest percentages. First, we compare the data of the outgoing cross-border workers with these from the outgoing posted workers (See Table 84 and Table 87). Germany (14 times), the Slovak Republic (8 times) and Poland (8 times) appear most frequently in the top-3 of ‘sending’ MS concerning cross-border workers. At the same time most important (in top 3) sending MS for posted workers are Germany (26 times), Poland (22 times) and France (20 times).

However, the spread of sending countries is somewhat more diverse for cross-border workers compared to posted workers (more concentrated in Germany, Poland and France as sending countries). Also the spread over MS receiving incoming cross-border workers was compared with this for MS receiving incoming posted workers (see Table 85 and Table 88). Germany (17 times) and the UK (12 times) are the most important working countries for cross-border workers while posted workers mostly are sent to Germany (18 times), France (12 times) and the Netherlands (10 times). The relationship between the two variables can be calculated by the correlation coefficient. 42 We see a strong positive linear relationship (0.76) between the variables ‘incoming posted workers’ and ‘incoming cross-border workers’, which implies the same MS receive as well cross-border workers as well as posted workers, probably to be considered as attraction pools of mobile workers. Besides, there is also a strong positive linear relationship (0.71) between the ‘outgoing posted workers’ and ‘outgoing cross-border workers’. 4.1.1.3 Migration of workers The possible number of PD U1 issued is also influenced by recent migrant workers.

Eurostat migration statistics are collecting the number of migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years) who have moved from one EU-country to another in 2011 (Table 5). One of the limitations is the lack of figures for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO. For those countries of which figures are available, we observe most migrant workers migrated to Germany (237 thousand in 2011), the UK (185 thousand in 2011) and Spain (54 thousand in 2011). This table shows also the importance of Romania as emigration country.

Also here we have calculated the relationship between ‘incoming migrant workers’ and ‘incoming cross-border workers’. We observe a strong positive linear relationship (0.70) between both variables, which implies that the same MS are dominant or less dominant. Within this group of recent migrant workers the unemployment rate of their current country of employment has been used to estimate the number of unemployed recent migrant workers. 42 The closer the coefficient is to either −1 or 1, the stronger the correlation between the variables. +1 = the case of a perfect positive (increasing) linear relationship (correlation) and −1 in the case of a perfect decreasing (negative) linear relationship. Row and column totals which lay above the reliability limits are indicated with a *.

Please take notice that some of the figures mentioned in the row and column totals are not reliable. This will specifically be the case for the detailed cells.

Total= sum of migrant workers of which the current country of residence is known Source: Eurostat Migration Statistics, [migr_imm5prv] 4.1.1.4 Estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers Making the breakdown between unemployed cross-border workers and migrant workers is important for different reasons. First, it gives a first impression of the impact both categories have on the number of issued PD U1 certificates and the budgetary impact on the unemployment expenditure.

Second, Member States can only claim a reimbursement for the unemployment benefits they have paid to cross-border workers. National unemployment rates are applied on the number of cross-border workers. 43 The national unemployment rates of 2010 (from 20 to 64 years) defined in the 2012 Ageing Report were used.

Also, the unemployment rates of the country of employment and not of the country of residence have been applied on the number of cross-border workers calculated by way of the LFS. This results in an estimation of 73.7 thousand unemployed cross-border workers of which 45.2 thousand frontier workers (Table 6). These figures will be used to estimate the expenditure as well as the claimed reimbursement of the provision of unemployment benefits to cross-border workers taking into account the baseline scenario and the policy options. 4.1.1.5 Estimated number of recent migrant workers The same unemployment rates are applied on recent migrant workers. As no data are available for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO no exhaustive view on the number of unemployed recent migrant workers can be obtained. When we extrapolate these figures for the EU-27, 128 thousand unemployed migrant workers are counted (Table 7).

The chance is rather high that this group will need a PD U1 certificate to prove periods of insurance or (self)-employment in another country. 4.1.1.6 Estimated number of proven period of insurance (PD U1) By counting the estimated number unemployed cross-border workers (4.1.1.4) and migrant workers (4.1.1.5) together, we become a total result of 202 thousand unemployed persons who may need a PD U1 certificate to prove periods of insurance of (self)employment from another country. This seems rather a minimum estimation compared to our other estimation of unemployed persons who will issue/receive a PD U1 certificate, namely 341 thousand unemployed persons (see Table 8). 43 Currently the average unemployment rate in incoming country is used, while the unemployment rate of foreign EU nationals is usually somewhat higher than nationals of the declaring country. However, the activity rate of foreign EU nationals is considerably higher and their employment rate is also higher. So compared to the size of the working age population the share of unemployed is not higher for foreign EU nationals. Row and column totals which lay above the reliability limits are indicated with a *.

Please take notice that some of the figures mentioned in the row and column totals are not reliable. This will specifically be the case for the detailed cells. The numbers are still not stable for diverse reasons. ** the reimbursement rules have recently changed (with the introduction of Decision U4 of the Administrative Commission) and may change again in future; ** MS (Member States) changed / will change the way / periodicity how they submit their claims; ** some rather large MS have not sent any claims until now (probably because of problems within their administrations); ** One important partner for Germany is Switzerland. We do not yet have meaningful statistical data because the application period of the reimbursement procedure is rather short.

We do not know whether our partner MS would agree that we provide information regarding claims from or towards the respective MS. Therefore we can only provide a rough estimation about yearly reimbursement claims. The estimation is based on claims from the second semester 2011 (submitted in the first semester 2012) and the first semester 2012 (submitted in the second semester 2012). ** yearly claims from Germany (Germany as creditor): 16.000 cases; ** yearly foreign claims towards Germany (Germany as debtor): 7.000 cases”. 58 This limitation is not foreseen in the healthcare chapter of. It would have an important impact on the amounts of reimbursement for LTC benefits in kind. Poland issued 7,599 reimbursement requests in 2011 for an amount of € 4.7 million (Table 72).

Most of the Polish claims were received by the United Kingdom (41% of cases) and the Netherlands (23% of cases). The debtor country rejected 71% of these Polish claims, while 29% of the claims were entirely accepted. The rejection rate is mainly influenced by the decision of the United Kingdom to reject all claims (644) from Poland. Romania sent a total amount of € 33,000 of reimbursement claims, mainly to Germany and Luxembourg.

Of Romania’s claims, 76% were entirely accepted and 24% not accepted (Table 72). Finally, the Slovak Republic claimed an amount of € 2.4 million, of which 42.9% was sought from the Czech Republic (Table 72). The extent to which Member States experience labour mobility will have an impact on the number and amount of reimbursement claims. For example: The number of incoming cross-border workers in Belgium is high, but the number of outgoing cross-border workers is even higher (Table 83). This high degree of labour mobility results in high levels of reimbursement requests sent and received. The amount of reimbursement requested (€ 8.7 million in 2012) will to a large extent compensate for the unemployment benefits paid out by the Belgian competent institution to former cross-border workers (€ 10.5 million in 2012). Germany, Poland and the Slovak Republic have a high number of outgoing cross-border workers which results in a much higher number/amount of claims issued compared to claims received.

At the same time, Denmark and Romania attract more cross-border workers, which results in a higher amount/more case of claims received. The reimbursement procedure mainly affects Luxembourg and Switzerland, which have a high number of incoming cross-border workers (see Table 81, Table 82, and Table 83).

4.1.5.3 Estimates of current reimbursement claims for the EU-27 A breakdown between claims for 3 months or 5 months is not available in the data of the launched questionnaire. 59 None of the responding countries could make this distinction in our questionnaire. In order to make an estimate, we will assume 3 months of claims (minimum scenario). Another crucial element which we should take into account for the calculation is the fact that the amount of reimbursement by the country of last activity is limited to the maximum unemployment benefit the unemployment person would receive in case of unemployment in the country of last activity.

60 For this exercise, we have multiplied the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers based on the LFS and the unemployment rates of the Ageing Report by the unemployment benefit per unemployed person for three months (in 2010 prices; projected in the 2012 Ageing Report). For that reason the figures concerning the estimated yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers should be read together with the figures dealing with the estimated reimbursement claims to assess who is sharing the burden of unemployment. For each of the flows between MS (in the different cells) the unemployment benefit of the country of last activity and the unemployment benefit of the country of residence is taken into consideration (see also Table 95). The unemployment benefit of the country of residence will be used to calculate the claim of reimbursement. Also, this claim will be compared with the actual reimbursement taking into account the rule that the reimbursement cannot be higher than the amount payable, in the case 59 Art. 65, 6 and 7,.

70 and Annex 5 Implementing. Of unemployment, under the legislation of the country of last activity (=maximum amount). The actual reimbursement will be equal to the claim when the unemployment benefit in the country of residence is lower than or equal to the unemployment benefit in the country of last activity.

The actual reimbursement will be equal to the unemployment benefit in the country of residence (=maximum amount) when the unemployment benefit in the country of residence is lower than the country of last activity (Table 95-Table 99). The baseline scenario A1 whereby frontier workers have to return to the country of residence and other cross-border workers can choose between the country of residence or the country of last activity involves a claim of € 108.8 million of which € 98.1 million for frontier workers when we assume that 50% of the other cross-border workers return to their country of residence (Table 95). However, these claims are based on the unemployment benefits paid by the country of residence and not on the maximum payable amount by the country of last activity.

It implies for this baseline scenario that the reimbursement will be 24% lower than the possible actual claim (see baseline scenario A1a - Table 96). If other cross-border workers are making a rational decision on the basis of the amount of the unemployment benefit (baseline scenario A2a - Table 97 & Table 98), the claim will increase with 3% compared to the baseline scenario A1a whereby 50% of the other cross-border workers are returning to their country of residence. 4.1.6 Estimated current administrative costs and burden 4.1.6.1 Data limitations In order to allow the stakeholders to identify the time spent on the information obligations related to the Regulations, we have defined prior to our visits in the Member States a standard legal process stemming from the Regulations, in cooperation with the Commission. During our first visits, we noticed several issues concerning this process: National administrations have developed their own administrative processes for processing/handling documents related to cross-border cases for unemployment benefits and long-term care. These differ substantially between the Member States. As a result, the experts in the respective countries faced difficulties in plugging the suggested administrative processes into their national way of working (processing documents); The legal process encompassed several sub-administrative processes and documents and therefore Information Obligations (IOs).

The complexity of the different processes proved to be an obstacle in making precise estimations of the (estimated) time spent for each of the processes. The experts were often not able to provide robust data on the time spent per each of the steps defined by the legal process. Moreover, as the Regulations impose “principles” of coordination more than specific information obligations in the sense of the SCM, and as the principles were already applied partly or integrally by the administrations or applied still differently, it proved to be impossible for the stakeholders to differentiate the specific administrative burden 61 created by the Regulations from the business-as usual (the administrative tasks they would perform anyway in the absence of the Regulations). Another consequence of the nature of the Regulations is that each national process is different, meaning that it results in different requirements, documents, times and complexity. It makes it impossible to standardize one process that fits all national specificities. Number of cases: We have collected data for the number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ for the following countries: Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Slovak Republic and the UK.

We have estimated the number of PD U1 documents for the other EU-27 countries on the basis of our own calculations based on collected administrative data and the 2012 Ageing Report (see section 4.1.2.1 for more detailed information on the number of PD U1/E301 forms ‘received’ and ‘issued’). We were able to calculate the 65 There are no legislation/manual/ instructions/guidelines explaining step by step what the Romanian authorities need to do specifically for each procedure for unemployment under the Regulation; in fact, no other Romanian authority has prepared any specific national legislation/manual/instructions/guidelines related to the implementation of the Regulation, with the exception of the Pensions Authority.

The is implemented in Romania via the Intermediary Body (National Labour Office) and Competent Institutions (County Labour Offices – 42 in total). The Intermediary Body mainly acts as a facilitator of contacts between Romanian institutions and foreign ones, as well as trainer and day-to-day support to county offices meeting difficulties in implementation of the Regulation. In the Intermediary Body there are two persons working on the Regulation (one person is 100% dedicated to the activities related to the Regulation, the other one dedicates approximately 70% of his/her time to the Regulation).

66 For instance: Review of the Working Time: measuring administrative costs and burdens of various possible options. Economisti Associati srl,. This study presents a tariff per MS and per level (managerial and clerical staff) that we have averaged. The result is in line with the tariff we use in other SCM that we have conducted for other European Commission DGs. Estimated administrative cost for the EU-27 on the basis of this data. The total estimated number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ in the EU-27 in 2010 is around 340 000. Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27) We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents on the basis of this formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N) The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents.

The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 14 604 326. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing PD U1 documents was highest (˃ EUR 1 million) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Spain, France, Germany and Italy.

It was lowest (˂ EUR 100 000) in descending order in Sweden, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta. Calculation of the unit cost per case: The average unit cost per case is based on the data we have received from Poland (the only country for which we have received robust data on the time spent for processing a PD U2 document 69 ). The average unit cost per case that we found concerns the export of an unemployment benefit to 3 months 70. Following the formula Time (T) x Wage (W), we have estimated an average unit cost per case (PD U2 ‘issued’) at EUR 4.5 71. The estimated unit cost should be treated with caution as it is based on one case only (Poland).

As discussed in the section on the ‘aggregation of periods’, Poland seems to have an efficient (automatized) system for processing/handling PD documents (the processing of the documents is reported to be less burdensome). Therefore, it is to be expected, that the Polish example presents a rather positive picture on the overall time spent to process these documents. Other countries, such as Romania (which reported a much higher time spent for processing the PD U1 document) may report longer periods for processing/handling these types of documents. Due to data limitations, we have calculated the average unit cost on the basis of the Polish example.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27) We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents (‘issued’) on the basis of this formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N) The calculation includes the time spent on national administrative procedures supporting the processing of the SEDS and the time needed for processing the SED. The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 106 695. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing a PD U2 documents was highest (˃ EUR 10 000) in a number of the old 69 A rough, undetailed estimation was collected for the Netherlands (source: public employment service UWV).UWV estimated the average time needed to issue a PD U2 document at 1.5 hour. 90% of the cases are estimated to be processed within 5 weeks. 70 We were not able to collect data on the average unit cost of a case where an unemployed persons export his unemployment for 6 months. Therefore, we needed to rely on a qualitative assessment to know how the administrative burden shifts if the export period is prolonged from 3 to 6 months.

71 Average time to process a PD U2 document in Poland is approximately 15 minutes. The average wage (clerk) is estimated at EUR 0.3 per minute (EUR 18 per hour): 15 x EUR 0.3 = EUR 4.5. Member States (in descending order): Spain, Germany and France. It was lowest (˂ EUR 500) in descending order in Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Estonia, Cyprus Malta and Romania. Calculation of the administrative cost (Poland) We have calculated the administrative cost for processing a number of documents related to reimbursement claims for Poland by applying the following formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N). Data were collected for the following documents: Member State of residence: • SED U020 'Reimbursement Request'; • SED U025 'Reimbursement Receipt/Closing notification'.

Competent Member State: • SED U021 'Reimbursement Full Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U022 'Reimbursement Non Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U023 'Reimbursement Partial Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U024 'Reimbursement Payment Notification'.