All about ESA Bending the rules to suit them!!!

[Like-Im-Being-Ripped-Off]

Critics of new medical tests aimed at getting claimants off benefits and into work say they are target-driven measures that penalise genuinely ill people.

Had Anna Wood realised that by bending down to pick up an object off the floor she would be deemed fit to work, perhaps the 33-year-old former academic would have thought twice. Wood, who had been forced to give up a prestigious fellowship position at Strathclyde University last year after developing severe ME, was made to perform the exercise as part of a medical test that all claimants of the new sickness benefit for ill and disabled people have to undertake.

"The doctor came and asked me lots of questions and filled in a form," she recalls. "I then got a letter saying, 'You've only got 12 points. We need 15. You don't qualify.' He had asked me to bend down and pick something off the floor and I did it. The point is I can't do it repeatedly, and I don't see how that can mean I can work. There was nothing in the test that related to my stamina and energy.

"How any normal person could read my medical report and think, 'Oh yes, she can work', is absolutely beyond me."

Wood points out a section in the report that states: "The healthcare professional opined that Dr Wood is likely to have significant instability regarding walking, standing and using stairs. She cannot hoover, wash dishes, make a bed and struggles to stand in the kitchen and needs to hold onto the rail using stairs ... due to fatigue and pain."

This tough medical test, called the work capability assessment (WCA), is at the heart of controversial changes to sickness benefit that were introduced last October when employment support allowance (ESA) replaced incapacity benefit (IB) for new claimants.

The test contains a series of questions, called "descriptors", that relate to physical and mental functions, and from which claimants score points. The test fails to include questions relating to energy, stamina, illness and malaise. Instead, it focuses on specific physical functions, such as reaching, bending and continence. In some cases, the "descriptors" are the same as they were in the IB test, but are now awarded fewer points, making the test harder to pass.

As a result, claimants who "risk losing control of their bowels or bladder" (six points) and also "need verbal instructions as to how to carry out a simple task" (six points) will not gain the 15 points required to pass the test, so they will be found entirely fit for work and placed on jobseeker's allowance (JSA). Of those who do pass, a third are not expected to work, but two-thirds will be expected to prepare for finding a job with help from a personal adviser employed by Jobcentre Plus.

Critics of the medical test, conducted by doctors and nurses supplied by ATOS Healthcare, a private company contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), say it is so stringent and heavy-handed that it raises the bar too high and fails to determine those who are genuinely ill.

Since its introduction a year ago, only 5% of ESA claimants have scored enough points to be deemed unable to work and to receive benefits of up to £108.55 a week, while 36% have been placed on JSA, where they will receive just £64.30.

A further 11% of ESA claimants have been found eligible for the "work related activity group" at a weekly rate of £89.80 per week. Here they receive tailored help and attend compulsory work-focused interviews. If they do not comply, their benefit is liable to be stopped. Under the previous medical test, up to 83% of IB claimants were found unfit for work.

The remainder of ESA claimants either stopped claiming benefits before the assessment was completed or were still being assessed at the time the statistics were being compiled, between October 2008 and February 2009.

Mark Baker, chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, an umbrella organisation representing more than 25 national disability groups, says it is extremely worried about these statistics. "They show quite clearly that the 'work capability assessment', the gateway to ESA, is extremely tough. We believe, as we said all along, that it would lead to people being put on to other inappropriate benefits where they don't get the support or help they need, and don't get the extra money that people who are out of work for longer periods of time need."

He accuses the government of refusing to acknowledge its concerns. "We believe it's been the government's intention to dramatically reduce the numbers of people on disability benefits. When this new work capability assessment was designed a couple of years ago, we felt throughout the process that our concerns were ignored and, at the end of the process, we said that the report did not reflect our input, did not reflect our concerns, and was not representative of the organisations invited to take part."

Although the DWP claims that the WCA assesses whether the person can "carry out an activity reliably and repeatedly the majority of the time", this is not borne out by the experience of claimants such as Wood and many disability organisations.

Daniel Berry, head of policy and campaigns at the MS Society, says: "MS symptoms can change by the day or even by the hour, so it's vital that benefits assessors are trained to understand fluctuating conditions. Many people risk losing the financial support they need if they are inaccurately assessed."

Tim Greenaway, a Manchester GP with patients who have failed to get ESA, describes the new medical test as "insensitive" and "clumsy" and failing to "acknowledge the role of doctors in providing a valuable opinion about their own patients". He says: "It seems to be driven by targets and the need to get people back to work."

 

Grave concerns

Welfare benefits officers working for the DWP also have grave concerns about the new test. One specialist benefits officer for sick and disabled people, and who wishes to remain anonymous, says: "What I'm seeing at ground level is that there are some people who do want to work but who are so ill and physically disabled that they can't, and they're being forced to go into the work-related group of ESA and to jump all these hurdles in order to get the benefit."

She challenged the case of one client who has a cognitive impairment. "Someone from the jobcentre visited my client and I went along. I asked her why she didn't accept the [medical] evidence I was submitting from medically trained people. I asked her if she was a doctor herself. During the interview, she accepted that my client would have to go into the 'support group.'"

Based on current figures, both main political parties anticipate saving £600m by reassessing existing IB claimants and putting many on JSA at a lower rate. Should they gain power, the Conservatives are also committed to introducing penalising JSA benefit cuts for "non-participation at all stages" or for turning down a reasonable job offer. One job refusal will result in a one-month benefits cut, two jobs refused will mean a three-month cut, and those who refuse three jobs will be excluded from receiving benefit for three years.

Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman, says: "The rhetoric sounds great – 'We're going to focus on what you can do and not what you can't do' – but we all know that what that really means in practice is getting tougher and setting the bar higher." He adds: "What worries me is the idea of a future Tory government going further, faster down this track and already budgeting for millions of savings, saying there's obviously people who don't need this money."

Wood eventually won an appeal at tribunal against her initial medical assessment and is now receiving the higher rate of ESA as someone who is unable to work. She is one of the luckier ones. So far, of those who have appealed – and the complexity of the process has meant appeals are only just starting to filter through – only 29.3% have been successful, in comparison with 51.2 % of IB claimants.

 

Work-related activity

However, the DWP insists that the work capability assessment is "a fairer medical assessment, looking at what people can do, not only what they can't." A DWP spokesman says: "This is not about making it harder for people to get benefit. It's about creating a fairer and more accurate assessment of an individual's functional capability, and will ensure that people who are able to undertake some work-related activity get the benefit that is right for them and receive the support they need to help them prepare for a return to work."

As people on JSA will not receive extra support that is tailored towards getting sick and disabled people back to work, disability campaigners point out that it will further decrease the already slim chances of such claimants finding suitable work.

Baker fears that the consequences will be dire. "I think the majority will end up at the feet of informal carers or local last-ditch charities," he says. "People will effectively drop out of society."

That says it all.

 

 

[Uncertain]

I agree 100% with this article.

 

Could you please provide a link to the original article as I would like to quote from it.

 

Thanks

[adamrao]

Melissa Viney asks if the new benefit testing penalise genuinely ill people | Society | The Guardian

 

70% of the claimants who attended LCWAs (ATOS assessment) failed to score required 15 points.

[RaeUK]

...70% of the claimants who attended LCWAs (ATOS assessment) failed to score required 15 points.

 

A shockingly high statistic that speaks volumes about the safety of this system.

 

There can only be two interpretations of that. One is farcical the other disturbing.

Firstly, they could say: well, just goes to show the incredibly large amount of people claiming being incapacitated who clearly aren't.

Or, secondly: Oh b*gger! We've made a seriously bad decision with this system. 70% failing cannot possibly be accurate. If we don't do something about it we could cause serious injury to someone or worse...

 

Probably not too difficult to guess which one The People In Suits favour.

 

Rae.

Edited February 13, 2010 by RaeUK
type o

[adamrao]

Rae

 

Like Michael Jackson said 'This is it'. Yes Rae my Dear 'This is it'.

[adamrao]

while examining the person, during the assessment, the doctor or health professional dont actually know whether the claimant'll be awarded the benefit. It the decision maker who plays with the numbers and decides people's fate. That's why almost 60% of the claimants who appeal the initial decision get the benefit awarded after the tribunal.

[Uncertain]

while examining the person, during the assessment, the doctor or health professional dont actually know whether the claimant'll be awarded the benefit. It the decision maker who plays with the numbers and decides people's fate. That's why almost 60% of the claimants who appeal the initial decision get the benefit awarded after the tribunal.

 

Not really true I'm afraid.

 

Most doctors are not idiots (although some who work for ATOS lack integrity).

 

The way the points system works is basically public knowledge so they know full well what will be the end result of their entries on the system.

 

I appreciate that there are some rare circumstances where the decision maker will have some additional information which may move, say, 12 points up to a pass but this is most unusual. 99% of people with less than 15 points from ATOS will get a "fail" letter. They may well be able to appeal this with additional medical evidence but that is not the point.

 

This is just a very convenient way of avoiding getting into arguments face to face with the claimant. Smile sweetly and let the bad news drop through the letter box a week or two later!

Edited February 14, 2010 by Uncertain

[ee-bee]

surely sooner or later something will have to be done about these medicals,someone,somewhere is paying for all of the medicals and appeals,i myself have wrote to my mp about the way the medicals are done and i really think everyone who is not happy about them should do the same and you never know ,maybe ,just maybe something will be done,i keep searching the goverment petition page and sign all petitions that are relevent to these medicals,

these medicals really affect people in several ways,i have been told by my bio nurse and the nurse who comes out to do my injections that i should be getting mobility allowance but guess what,i`m too bloody scared to apply for it for fear of another of these medicals that will start the ball rolling again when i`v only just got my ib back,

[rightsforme]

Something does need to be done were all failing the medical and now even worse as even winning appeal is short lived relief. Following and accident years ago I suffer from severe PTSD diagnosed and treated by top specialist in the field and severe back pain problems which are permanent. Had major recurrence of PTSD following bullying at work which became unmanageable and had to go from JSA to ESA. Failed medical was only given 12 points on what should have been well in excess of 100 and had to appeal. Welfare rights helped and also got me DLA mid rate care and low mobility. ESA tribunal took 9 months and decision was overturned and qualify in the work related group medical evidence support the exceptional circumstances apply. Great at last I can concentrate on getting my life back but no 2 weeks later letter from ATOS arrives DWP request that following my appeal I have to have a medical assessment for my ESA. Of course not surprisingly this has sent me right back down, I have to go course or they will stop my ESA to the same place and have the same medical the decision was based on which was overruled, so this looks like there new way of trying to get out of paying us our entitlement.

[45002]

A very good thread,could it be made sticky ? so everyone gets a chance to read it.

 

Whats more worrying about atos,they are clearly not telling anyone that a IB/EAS medical will affect your DLA claim as well,if you loose your IB/EAS claim..