Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Could I just point out there's a huge difference between your initial assertion (that this was widespread) and your latest (a single instance).
You also appear to be stating that ATOS reprimanded a doctor for doing what you said they wanted (certify people as being fit for work when they weren't), or are you saying they reprimanded him/her for saying that people weren't fit for work? Any links?
|
A single instance was sent to the bbc.
There is many unknowns with atos, because they a private company freedom of information requests cannot reveal what they do internally.
What I know?
Atos get paid more if they find more fit for work.
Atos question their doctors if they rule a large amount of people unfit for work in any given space of time.
Some hand written reports have been altered after the medical has taken place, in every case to make the condition less serious.
Some reports hand written and lima based have factually incorrect information about what the claimant is capable off.
Atos sometimes uses nurses or even non medical admin staff to carry out medicals.
Keep poking me for holes if you like.
---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
that would usually be because without hard evidence they will get into a lot of trouble,of course there are papers that don't care as much about hard evidence when making claims such as NOTW or the DM so if there was so much as a sniff of truth behind that allegation you made they would be all over it imo
|
Papers dont print anything as long as there is evidence, they have political allegances. Papers often do print stuff without evidence of course. You put too much trust into them.