Medical Examination with ATOS affecting DLA

[assisted blonde]

Oscar i am not judging anyone I wouldnt presume to without the full facts, some people find regular assesments unreasonable others dont mind but should everyone have assesments or noone have assesments? whatever happens it should be the same for everyone that way we are all treated the same. As I said this is just my opinion to which I am entitled to but getting personal and agressive is not very productive. as for people getting sickness benefits etc that they are not entitled to I do know as fact of people who have done this and people who have gone from JSA to sickness/disability because they actually dont want to work. I am not saying that this is everyone what I am saying is that there needs to be a clear and transparent system for assesment to which everyone adheres to.

[Nystagmite]

Have you reported these people? Or are you (like over 99% of those who report others) not in possession of the full facts and think that because they don't look disabled, they're not?

[assisted blonde]

Nothing to do with someone not looking disabled its knowing them personally and yes I have reported the ones that I know of personally and been correct, however I dont like doing it which is why I think there should be more checks. (just to say 2 were realatives and I was totally disgusted) I would never report anyone just on suspicion or hersay, but the bad apples end up tainting everyone and they must be weeded out somehow.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I have indeed reported - including the dates and times, and location, where the person can be seen - and precisely nothing has happened - which is why I believe that the system of repeated medicals is a good one.

 

Do I know all the facts? No, of course not, but when the information comes from the person themselves it is likely to be true - it was before I was claiming benefits, and people were giving me "advice" on how to claim the benefits, and how to make sure you get higher rate DLA. One person was keen to become my carer (without having to be here, of course), willing to let me "share" the carers allowance with them. I have also been asked to "lose" my blue badge, and offered £100 for it.

 

 

It is similar to the issue of people claiming unemployment benefit while working for cash - again, reporting does nothing, unless you are prepared to give a witness statement that you employed the person and paid cash nothing will happen - and I don't want to take the risk of doing that, I have to live here.

[oscar123]

Oscar i am not judging anyone I wouldnt presume to without the full facts, some people find regular assesments unreasonable others dont mind but should everyone have assesments or noone have assesments? whatever happens it should be the same for everyone that way we are all treated the same. As I said this is just my opinion to which I am entitled to but getting personal and agressive is not very productive. as for people getting sickness benefits etc that they are not entitled to I do know as fact of people who have done this and people who have gone from JSA to sickness/disability because they actually dont want to work. I am not saying that this is everyone what I am saying is that there needs to be a clear and transparent system for assesment to which everyone adheres to.

 

If you make a generalisation such as "there are too many people who get sickness benefits who shouldnt be" on a forum which is likely to attract disabled people in receipt of such, then you are being confrontational and personal and possibly exhibiting aggression and you should be prepared to deal with the reaction. Reassessments should take into account the person's disability and the possibility of recovery of not and should therefore be individual to each person and not rolled out across the board, the same for everyone. However, as already stated, by being called for reassessment as to whether your circumstances have changed you are in effect being challenged about whether you are a liar, since each claimant signs to notify of any change in circumstances.

[oscar123]

Yes, the bad apples should be weeded out but they are few and far between, the official fraud rate being, I believe, 0.5%. However the government and the media puts emphasis on the small amount of fraud committed, so as to turn the non-disabled general public against people in receipt of benefits, and to win their support for their reforms cutting the benefits and services of disabled people.

[Nystagmite]

I have indeed reported - including the dates and times, and location, where the person can be seen - and precisely nothing has happened - which is why I believe that the system of repeated medicals is a good one.

 

That's probably because they're doing nothing wrong.

 

As for repeated medicals - some medicals can be and are painful. I am already put through enough painful medical each year to check that my eye sight isn't getting worse and that the fluid in my brain hasn't increased to such an extent that it can cause serious problems. Why should I go through more medicals? My GP and consultants can be trusted to diagnose me and prescribe the appropriate treatment - why can't they be trusted enough to give their medical opinion on my disabilities and whether they cause me problems? In fact, they know a darn sight more than the DWP.

[jippity]

Very few illnesses are for a lifetime. Medication can improve the quality of life as could surgery. Yes I will agree that there are some conditions that will never improve irrespective of drugs or surgery.

 

The waste of money is having separate assessments being carried out for the DWP for each type of benefit claim. Far cheaper to have a combined one. Then how do the DWP decided who should and who shouldn't have an annual assessment? Yes those that have a terminal prognosis of less than 6 months should be exempt of course.

A GP's or Consultant's report is only as good as on the day it was given. In order to catch those that do have improvements in their health but fail to notify, it will only be fair to assess everybody. Otherwise the DWP will stand accused of picking and choosing, with those chosen complaining - why me?.

 

Isn't there a question on the form for your practitioner to answer, which asks if the patients condition would improve in the foreseeable future?

[jippity]

I do have a problem with general GPS though making long term assesments as they dont have the specialist knowledge

 

But the people doing the medical examinations for ESA generally aren't doctors at all. Mine was conducted by a nurse, who had never even heard of one of my illnesses. She argued that it was impossible for me to have brain damage from an underactive thyroid being undiagnosed for several years. I produced a letter from my neurologist which stated that I had brain damage from my underactive thyroid going undiagnosed for several years, and she completely discounted it because she had never heard of it! It meant that none of my problems related to the diagnosis were considered during my assessment. It didn't matter that I could hardly balance, struggled to hold a pen etc... all because *she* had not heard of this before (and it's not even considered rare...).

 

I have no issue with regular check-ins but I do think that the doctors who are involved with the patients are the only ones qualified to make these decisions. Certainly not practitioners who have no knowledge of the patient and, as you say, no specialist training.