The state benefits system mega-thread.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

With DLA it was possible to have a problem in just one area, eg not being able to bend down, but with the point scoring system of PIP you are likely to need problems in several areas in order to qualify.

The emphasis with sickness and disability claims has always been that the claimant has to "prove" their claim. It would be nonsense to simply take their word for things.

I think one of the problems is that with Incapacity Benefit and DLA many claimants ended up on benefit for years unchallenged creating a sense of entitlement.

The current system does not allow this, with periodic and regular reviews to check if conditions have improved over time with treatment.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

I think one of the problems is that with Incapacity Benefit and DLA many claimants ended up on benefit for years unchallenged creating a sense of entitlement.

The current system does not allow this, with periodic and regular reviews to check if conditions have improved over time with treatment.

A sense of entitlement to some but please don't put every claimant in the same boat..

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

A sense of entitlement to some but please don't put every claimant in the same boat..

Oh certainly not.

The amount of fraud and error in the benefit system is tiny, despite what certain newspapers portray. With appeals statistics as they are clearly something is wrong with the evidence gathering and application of the regulations.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I think one of the problems is that with Incapacity Benefit and DLA many claimants ended up on benefit for years unchallenged creating a sense of entitlement.

The current system does not allow this, with periodic and regular reviews to check if conditions have improved over time with treatment.

An example of this was in the the recent episode of "60 Days on the Streets". A "homeless" guy on the streets of London complained that his benefits had been stopped after 20 years. Further investigation found that not only was he not homeless(home in Merseyside), he had refused on principle to attend the assessment. He complained of mobility problems, but was obviously able to get from Merseyside to the streets of London.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Oh certainly not.

The amount of fraud and error in the benefit system is tiny, despite what certain newspapers portray. With appeals statistics as they are clearly something is wrong with the evidence gathering and application of the regulations.

The problem with any fraud figures is they will either refer to identified fraud or estimated. Neither of those is going to be accurate. Any identified fraud figures are not going to include those not yet identified.


How many of the 28% not upheld at the Tribunal stage are fraudulent, or are marginal cases and could have gone either way, or based upon a misunderstanding of the rules.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The regulations don't preclude this, but yes, it all depends on the circumstances of the people involved.

The whole culture seems to have changed at the DWP from wanting to help people, to viewing them with suspicion and contempt.

Richard, please don’t talk bollocks.

My wife works at the DWP, and I often socialise with her work colleagues - whilst there are, like in any organisation, some horrible people, most of the people I have met have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for those claiming.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by jfman

With appeals statistics as they are clearly something is wrong with the evidence gathering and application of the regulations.

Atos and Capita are PAID large sums to collect medical evidence from GP's and hospitals. They apparently do so very rarely, relying on claimants to provide it all. So money for nothing, more profit.

And even when current medical proof is provided, they appear to ignore it altogether, just relying on their paid "medical professionals" to come up with a vindictive attack on the claimant.

Would you like a young ex-physiotherapist giving you treatment for a mental illness or disability? Or an ex- nursing auxilliary (care nurse) ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Taf

Atos and Capita are PAID large sums to collect medical evidence from GP's and hospitals. They apparently do so very rarely, relying on claimants to provide it all. So money for nothing, more profit.

And even when current medical proof is provided, they appear to ignore it altogether, just relying on their paid "medical professionals" to come up with a vindictive attack on the claimant.

I’m familiar with the subject area and I’m inclined to agree that private sector involvement is a problem.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Taf

Atos and Capita are PAID large sums to collect medical evidence from GP's and hospitals. They apparently do so very rarely, relying on claimants to provide it all. So money for nothing, more profit.

And even when current medical proof is provided, they appear to ignore it altogether, just relying on their paid "medical professionals" to come up with a vindictive attack on the claimant.

Would you like a young ex-physiotherapist giving you treatment for a mental illness or disability? Or an ex- nursing auxilliary (care nurse) ?

The problem with Atos and Capita and anybody else they use from outside is very much at the root of the problem as it was a system far more trusted by all involved when it was done in house by the DWP who employed their own medical professionals rather then someone with a limited medical knowledge who knows diddly squat about the claimants medical condition to start with and the needs the claimant might have on a day to day basis because of their medical condition.

Currently the model as it is is nothing more then a tick box exercise rather then a thorough assessment it used to be when it was done in house at the DWP thus that is why we have so many that go to appeal and win their appeals because many of the individual cases are riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies to start off with.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Richard, please don’t talk bollocks.

My wife works at the DWP, and I often socialise with her work colleagues - whilst there are, like in any organisation, some horrible people, most of the people I have met have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for those claiming.

Of course there is good and bad in any any organisation, but the organisational culture changed when David Cameron introduced his 'stricter benefits regime'.

Take a read of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...isabled-people

Some claimants have even been sanctioned for arriving at an appointment early, because they were afraid of being sanctioned for being late!

The DWP denied that staff had sanction targets to meet, until proof was discovered that this was an outright lie.

Oh and they now want access to peoples private medical records:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8797991.html

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Of course there is good and bad in any any organisation, but the organisational culture changed when David Cameron introduced his 'stricter benefits regime'.

Take a read of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...isabled-people

Some claimants have even been sanctioned for arriving at an appointment early, because they were afraid of being sanctioned for being late!

The DWP denied that staff had sanction targets to meet, until proof was discovered that this was an outright lie.

Oh and they now want access to peoples private medical records:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8797991.html

The issues were there long before 2010.

This thing about targets is the usual utter nonsense. If your performance is too far away from a certain level in EITHER direction, then it possibly needs looking at. Nothing whatsoever new about that concept. On the one hand it is easy to not hand out sanctions when you should, but also possible to hand out too many when perhaps you shouldn't.

Just imagine SNP in charge of benefits. They would be handing out English money at every opportunity.

The DWP do take on changes. That is mentioned in the annual independent reviews.

providing them with employment skills rather than focusing on getting them into work.

And when the DWP do that, there is constant complaints.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Of course there is good and bad in any any organisation, but the organisational culture changed when David Cameron introduced his 'stricter benefits regime'.

Take a read of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...isabled-people

Some claimants have even been sanctioned for arriving at an appointment early, because they were afraid of being sanctioned for being late!

The DWP denied that staff had sanction targets to meet, until proof was discovered that this was an outright lie.

Oh and they now want access to peoples private medical records:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8797991.html

Wouldn't giving access to medical records provide proof to support the claim?

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Of course there is good and bad in any any organisation, but the organisational culture changed when David Cameron introduced his 'stricter benefits regime'.

Take a read of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...isabled-people

Some claimants have even been sanctioned for arriving at an appointment early, because they were afraid of being sanctioned for being late!

The DWP denied that staff had sanction targets to meet, until proof was discovered that this was an outright lie.

Oh and they now want access to peoples private medical records:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8797991.html

That is completely different from

The whole culture seems to have changed at the DWP from wanting to help people, to viewing them with suspicion and contempt.

The "culture" in the DWP is to implement policy, not to interpret it (this is actively and strongly discouraged).

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wouldn't giving access to medical records provide proof to support the claim?

Does not the signed declaration on the claim form give then access to that?.

Originally Posted by denphone

Does not the signed declaration on the claim form give then access to that?.

I would have thought so...

In fact, in the linked article, it states

A DWP spokesperson said: “No information will be accessed without explicit and informed consent, and to suggest otherwise would misleading. Some patients are happy to share information which is why we are able to use their information to help them claim health related benefits most quickly.

“Anything to make this an easier and quicker experience for claimants would help them, which is why we are simply exploring potential options to improve the current system.”

As long as privacy concerns were followed, and the patient had to authorise release of the information, it seems OK.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wouldn't giving access to medical records provide proof to support the claim

Makes perfect sense to me - would be a waste of time and money to ignore a ton of useful evidence - this kind of thing happens when people take out and claim on private insurance policies but obviously need to give their consent.

[nomadking]

There may be instances where access to medical records would help, but on the whole, the mass of info might overwhelm decision makers and they would cherry pick entries. It will be full of medical terms and abbreviations.

Any references to what the patient/claimant has said as to how a condition affects them, doesn't carry much weight unless it is within what can be expected with that medical condition.


Often with a medical condition there is a point where nothing more can be achieved and you don't bother the GP. That seems to be taken as a negative thing and a sign that there is no problem.