Will new Government occupational health assessments result in benefit disqualification?

This week the Government announced the creation of a new Health and Work service. Once set-up, anyone off sick for more than four weeks will be offered a work-focused occupational health assessment to help them get back to work more quickly.

It is unclear at the moment how this will play out in practice. The service is intended to be non-compulsory, but so was the DWP's Universal job match service. However as of March last year, the Government announced that Jobseeker Allowance claimants could be mandated to use the service or risk losing their benefits. It isn't inconceivable either that an employer will coerce an employee to take part in an assessment with the implicit threat that failure to do so would be seen as proof that they aren't as ill as they say they are. With legal aid for work disputes now cut, an ill person may feel obliged to go through an assessment for fear of being sacked without financial recourse to appeal.

But my concern is that anyone who willingly agrees to a Health and Service review may well find the results come back to bite them. Someone sick for more than four weeks may well have applied, or be about to apply, for Employment and Support Allowance. This is paid out at the same rate as Job Seeker's Allowance, and is only increased to the higher amount after a person has been claiming for more than three months and once further information has been given to the DWP.

As it stands, in June last year the DWP introduced new rules as to who is eligible for ESA. These include harsh rules for disqualification for misconduct which state that the benefit can be withdrawn for up to six weeks if the claimant:

"fail without good cause to attend for or submit to medical or other treatment (excluding vaccination, inoculation or major surgery) recommended by a doctor with whom, or a hospital or similar institution with which, the claimant is undergoing medical treatment, which would be likely to remove the limitation on the claimant’s capability for work."

If a claimant has willingly attended an occupational review and has not implemented its suggestions because they do not agree with them, then it is conceivable that this refusal may well harm the person's right to access higher-rate ESA. And given the Government's track record with hiring companies like Atos who don't appear to understand the real nature of disability, it is conceivable that a person rejects the advice purely on the grounds that it conflicts with that given by their own GP or the self-knowledge they have built up over the years of managing a long-term condition.

Remember, 40% of people with long-term incurable illnesses have been told by Atos after an assessment that they are expected to recover.

It is also easily conceivable that a business will use the assessment, whether it is accurate or not, to claim that the person is well enough to return to work immediately, and if they do not do so will be at risk of being fired.

These are my early concerns and will hopefully not come to fruition. But as always with policies imposed upon disabled people rather than created through discussion with them, it will be disabled people who will have to bear the pain of this new policy if it does turn out to be another 'tool' to push people off benefits or back into work before they are well enough.

New rule will leave ESA appellants without ANY income indefinitely

I've been away for a long time - basically being very ill. I'll update you all on my personal travails another time but my first post in over a year will be dedicated to the extraordinary logical brain of Ian Duncan Smith.

He has been lambasted today for the horrendous mess that is Universal Credit - which is over budget, under target, poorly managed, and with no solution in sight on how to get it back on track. But while this central plank of IDS's welfare reform receives all the attention, other smaller, but arguably more costly changes are being introduced with little attention.

On October 28th his department of Work and Pensions introduced a change to the appeal process for Employment and Support allowance, the main disability benefit for those too ill to work. As of last month a claimant who wishes to appeal against a decision that they are not entitled to ESA must first ask the DWP to reconsider the decision before he or she can lodge an official appeal. 

However the DWP has decided during this new 'mandatory reconsideration' stage the claimant will no longer receive ESA income and neither will a time limit be given as to how long this process will take. The reality is that this will leave people without any income whatsoever for an indefinite period of time - its a truly shocking decision given that nearly 40% of appeals are found in the claimant's favour. It is unsurprising that this rule is already the subject of a parliamentary early day motion.

The Government argues that the claimant can claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) during this appeal stage but in reality this will be at the discretion of the jobcentre. Today's statistics of sanctions against JSA claimants show that every month 12% of job seekers are referred for sanction. The New Policy Institute clarifies that these sanctions are given if there is a 'labour market doubt', or in their words, "Job Centre Plus may have felt they were not making themselves available for work". It is clear that disabled people will be an easy target for sanctions if they struggle to job hunt while coping with bad health problems. Labour MP, Sheila Gilmore, even documents a case in which her constituent Rose Burgess was told by the DWP she was too well to claim ESA, but told by the Job Centre she was too ill to claim JSA.

This new rule will push disabled people into poverty or into even worse ill health. It won't even save any money as basic rate ESA, currently payable at this assessment rate during an appeal process, is £71.70 and JSA is paid at £71.70. In addition, the concern is that mandatory reconsideration has created a Catch 22 situation - by applying for JSA the fear is that it will be taken as evidence in any ESA appeal that the individual has admitted a capacity to work.

So there we are - IDS's amazing logic shines again - a new rule that saves no money, unless, of course, the idea is to force people off benefit entirely. Instead it just heaps more misery, poverty and persecution on disabled people - anyone would think that's his aim...

ESA cancer concession signals popularity contest for disability benefits

The news that the Government is softening its harsh approach to cancer patients claiming sickness benefits is a welcome relief. Yesterday it announced that the one year time limit for recipients of Employment and Support allowance will only start counting down once the patient has finished all their medical treatments. It has also said that cancer patients can avoid the WCA medical test carried out by Atos as a GP's report will be acceptable proof for the benefits office.

Finally, we think, the Government is being reasonable. It is trusting NHS doctors again to verify the health of their patients and at last recognises that forcing cancer patients to attend DWP job interviews will only slow down their recovery.

Yet perversely this common sense approach to benefits locks the Government into ever more irrational behaviour. As these changes will only apply to cancer patients, other people with just as serious illnesses will still be locked into an unfair system in which they will lose benefit payments after one year even if they are not well enough to return to work - remember the Government's own estimates show that 94% of people who received time limited ESA will not be better after 12 months. The work-focused ESA also forces sick people to seek jobs, attended job centre interviews and even do unlimited work experience while they are still too sick to work.

So yes this change is great news for cancer patients but it stinks to me of a Government running scared that the public is waking up to how punitative and harsh its sickness benefits system is, and is desperate to avoid appalling headlines like this one. Cancer receives widespread media coverage as it can happen to anyone at any time, so come the election such Government negligence could have become a real door-step issue. But ultimately if the Government recognises changes are needed for ESA and the WCA it has a duty to ensure that they are rolled out universally not just for a particular group of people for whom there is greater public sympathy or understanding.

Just as worryingly this shift in policy sets a precedent that those illnesses that have popular support from the public will get a fairer hearing in the huge welfare upheaval than those who suffer from rare or unpopular illnesses (think what a rougher ride those with depression receive from the tabloid press).

Earlier this year Ian Duncan Smith announced that under Personal Independence Payments (the controversial benefit replacing Disability Living Allowance) amputees will be unlikely to receive the top level of mobility support that they currently do under DLA, and warned the public that this would also apply to soldiers.Yet Cameron intervened saying that amputee war veterans will be exempt from the harsh restrictions planned for the mobility component of PIP.

How can Cameron argue that a civilian with a below the knee amputation caused by a road traffic accident is any less disabled than a soldier with the same amputation caused by an IED?

I can see the way the wind is blowing on this issue and I for one don't want a society in which people with illnesses are pitted against each other in some bizarre X-Factor-style media popularity contest as the rest of us judge who is and isn't deserving of fair treatment.

Budget 2012: the disabled marginalised yet again

Yesterday's budget contained a kick in the teeth for disabled people, quickly followed by a punch in the face.

The Chancellor's retreat on child benefit, moving the threshold for ineligibility from those earning over £43,000 to those earning over £60,000, was a bare-faced example of the Government looking after its own voters. When the planned benefit cut was announced last year there were howls of outrage amongst higher rate earners, and the Tories, mindful an election has to be fought in perhaps two years time, decided to try and save their own skins.

How is this relevant to disabled people?

When the recent Welfare reform Bill passed through the House of Lords, three defeats were enacted on the Government as the Lords chose to make changes that they believed would safe-guard some of the most sick and disabled in the country. One of those changes was to extend the length of time that people on contributory-based Employment Support Allowance could claim the benefit. The Government proposed that those people place in the Working Capability Group of ESA (so claimants who are too ill to work but should be able to in the future) could only claim the benefit for a year. The Lords voted to extend this to two years to ensure that people had enough time to get better before being forced into work. Macmillan cancer support for example argued that annually 7.000 cancer patients, routinely placed in the Working group of ESA, take longer than 12 months to recover.

Although the Lords followed due democratic process to enact these changes, they have not come into force. The Government used 'financial privilege' to block these amendments. In short, MPs cried "Sorry, no money!" and did so in a way that has seen no precedent.

But suddenly come budget day, the Government discovered a stash of cash to save the child benefit of higher rate tax-payers, those who are doing ok in life, and yet still no money to extend ESA for those who are too sick to work through no fault of their own. More worryingly for democracy, the Government places greater value on the opinion of its voters then on the democratic process of a Bill being passed into law.

The second fear hidden in the budget was Osborne's casual mention that Ian Duncan Smith would have to find a further £10 billion of welfare cuts on top of the £18 billion already slashed from these bills. The biggest slice of welfare is spent on old age - with today's vicious headlines about a granny tax I can't see the Government making any further cuts to pensioners. Child benefit cuts now seem completely off the table, a decision that Ian Duncan Smith may come to resent Osborne for as he frantically tries to cut £10 billion.

So where can more cuts be found? Housing benefit perhaps, childcare credits even, but a clear forerunner would be disability benefits. Disability Living Allowance is already scheduled to be scrapped next year, and replaced by Personal Independence Payments (PIP). In the Government's last spending review it arbitrarily decided to cut recipients of PIP by 20%, before it had even decided the criteria for eligibility or assessed the needs of a single disabled person.

What's the betting that in the next spending review the Government decides to save 25% or even 30% from the PIP bill? I for one am very worried.

What practical changes to Atos's WCA would you recommend to the Government?

The 'Responsible Reform' Spartacus report revealed the power of social media in helping to raise awareness to the cuts faced by disabled people in the UK. It got the House of Lords to listen to disabled people. If it wasn't for a the Government utilising the Commons 'financial privilege' in a way that has seen no precedent, significant changes would have been made to the Welfare Bill that would have protected disabled people from some of its worst 'reforms'.

So thinking about this success, and following on from the brilliant article written by Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian earlier this week, I thought it would be great to capture people's experiences of Atos's Working Capability Assessment (WCA) to pull together recommendations for the Government to help make the process fairer.

As much as many people reading this will say the WCA shouldn't exist, my main focus is to work within the system that has been imposed on us (and which no political party has recommended repealing) to think of practical changes that the Government could implement immediately and at no cost. Listed below are my initial thoughts. Please do comment and add your thoughts too.

1. DWP should give doctors' reports equal weight as Atos's WCA medical test
Although Atos conduct the 'independent' medical test it is the DWP who have the final decision about who does and doesn't receive ESA. It is widely felt amongst the disabled community that in reality the DWP are just rubber stamping the decision made by Atos's medical test, at it is the company's system of awarding points to a claimant's illness that decides if someone reaches the threshold of eligibility. A simple change would be to give equal weight to the reports given to the DWP by the claimant's own doctors and to the report provided by Atos. Where there is a clear discrepancy in the perceived ability of a claimant the DWP could step in early to demand more informationn from both parties, hopefully reducing the number of mistakes made and the huge cost to the Government of managing appeals against DWP's ESA decisions.

2. Stop the continual cycle of re-testing
One of the shocking problems within the ESA system, is that once a claimant has waited up to nine months to have his or her case heard at the court of appeal and finally been awarded ESA, they can be recalled for another medical within months of the appeal being heard. This second medical then strips the claimant of ESA forcing them back into the stressful and lengthy appeal process. This makes no sense to either the claimant who is struggling to regain their health or to the tax payer which is paying £50 million a year for this appeals merry-go-round. At each appeal hearing, each claimant should be given a date before which they cannot be called back for another medical and the DWP must be made to honour this date. I suggest a year before retests but opinions are welcome on this.

3. Impose financial penalties on Atos for incorrect decisions
A Commons select committee report last year highlighted that Atos may be driven by a profit motive to, in their words, "get the assessments done, but not necessarily to get the assessments right". The Government should treat Atos like any other private contractor and impose financial penalties for incorrect decisions. Clearly a margin of error may be acceptable but decisions in which a claimant has been awarded 0 points by Atos to then be awarded 15 points on appeal cannot be justified. It isn't in the taxpayers interest to fund an appeal process worth £50 million a year while letting Atos retain all of its £100 million annual fee.


Please do let me know what you think - it would be great to work together as a social media community to create key recommendations from those who have been through the WCA process to try and make a difference to those who have to endure it in the future.

The Government’s disability strategy out of touch with the reality of cuts

The Government is in the final week of its consultation asking disabled people to help develop its disability strategy. Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, has said that: “The Government is committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and have the opportunity to play a full role in their community”. But in reality it is clear that the Government lacks any cohesive policy that will enable this to happen.

In the last three years 31 people have died while awaiting appeals against Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) medicals that had found them fit to work. At their most vulnerable, the sick and disabled were left worrying to the day they died about how they and their family would cope financially while their illness was slowly killing them. Society should be in uproar that people in dire need turned to the state for help and were failed by it, but instead media and Government debate focuses on disabled ‘scroungers’, further isolating the disabled from their communities.

Yet while it could be argued in the case of ESA that Government incompetence is forcing disabled people into hardship, the same cannot be said for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), the new benefit that is replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Under PIP eligibility rules, even if you cannot walk more than 50 metres and need a wheelchair to get about for any longer distances, a disabled person still won’t be eligible for higher rate mobility – which in short means they will most likely lose access to a car through the motability scheme and the freedom such a vehicle gives them that their body cannot.

By cold-hearted design, these ‘independence payments’ will in fact take independence away from severely disabled people and force them to remain in their homes. No wonder Lady Grey-Thompson, speaking to the Guardian last month, said: “I worry that it is going to become the way it was when I was young where you just didn’t see disabled people on the street because they were locked away.”

These aren’t the only cuts aimed at disabled people. The Department of Work and Pensions’ own analysis into the housing benefit reforms states that 450,000 disabled people will face cuts to their allowance under new rules. 78,000 disabled people who use legal aid to appeal against decisions to deny them benefit will lose this support under Ken Clarke’s reforms. The Independent Living Fund (ILF) has been entirely closed to new claimants and by 2015 payments to the 21,000 severely disabled people it helps will cease. Tax credits to help with the extra costs of raising a disabled child will be cut from a maximum of £54 a week to £27 a week under Ian Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit changes – cuts that the Children’s Society says will see some families with disabled offspring £1,400 worse off a year. According to a Government Select Committee on Health, nearly two thirds of local authorities in England have reduced their disabled and adult social care budgets. As such councils have drastically altered their criteria for providing care to disabled adults, leaving many people unable to wash and dress themselves properly isolated in their own filth as they are not disabled enough to qualify for care.

These cuts will severely curtail disabled people’s ability to “fulfil their potential”. PIP will actually remove independence from disabled people, the scrapping of ILF will see disabled people condemned to care homes, decisions to limit ESA to one year, leaving 7000 cancer patients without any financial support while they are still too unwell to work, will only help in moving disabled people into poverty, not into the workplace. Cuts to legal aid will take away their voice, housing benefit remove them from often supportive communities and homes that are specially adapted for their needs. Harsh reductions in social care budgets will see people stuck in hospital for longer periods of time as they cannot be discharged into communities because they lack provision for their basic care. Disabled people were already twice as likely to be living in poverty than others before these cuts were imposed: no wonder disabled people up and down the country are scared stiff of these ‘reforms’.

The Government’s consultation document, entitled ‘Fulfilling potential’, makes specific mention of “tackling discrimination” towards disabled people and “promoting positive attitudes”. Yet charities have directly linked a rise in disabled abuse with the increasing rhetoric from Government ministers that disabled people are scrounging off society. 

So bad has the Government’s attitude become that disability groups are now questioning whether they can continue to work with it on shaping further welfare reforms.

By the end of this parliament, if all these cuts are implemented, far from disabled people fulfilling their potential, the Coalition would instead have successfully reversed twenty years of advances made in helping the disabled play a valued and active part in society. Shame on all MPs if that is their intention. And if it isn’t, then the Government must wake up to the impact of these cuts, ban negative ministerial rhetoric linking the disabled with ‘scroungers’ and honour its supposed desire to develop policies that give back respect and support to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

DLA reform should be PAUSED until TWO key issues resolved

Following on from last week's dramatic defeat in the House of Lords of three proposed welfare reform changes, the debate has now moved on to the reform of DLA. The Lords will be voting tonight on the plans, including an amendment by Baroness Grey-Thompson, of paralympic fame, that there would have to be a pilot before a new medical assessment of DLA is brought in. You can also read more about this at Sue Marsh's great blog. However, for the sake of the taxpayer and disabled people across the nation, DLA reform should be paused until two key issues are resolved.
 1. Do not scrap DLA until the Government can clearly demonstrate that its desire to cut 20% from the budget will not leave genuinely sick people in need
Government statistics show the fraud of DLA is 0.5%, yet in its 'Budget 2010 policy costings document" the Government unveiled its intention to cut the number of those in receipt of DLA by 20% despite the fact it is yet to outline any eligibility criteria for PIP. This obviously raises serious concerns that genuinely ill people will be denied benefit solely to meet a pre-decided budget and that 'eligibility' for PIP will be driven by costs not by need. As Sue Marsh highlights in her blog, the current tabled legislation has so few details in it, which are meant to be decided by MPs under secondary legislation at a later date, that we do not know how these reforms will affect our lives, despite the fact it is being introduced NEXT YEAR.

2. Halt any introduction of PIP medical assessments until the financial and emotional catastrophe surrounding the similar medical for ESA is sorted out
The Government wishes to introduce a medical assessment for all recepients of PIP, despite the fact that a similar assessment process for Employment Support Allowance is currently in a huge mess. Society should be in uproar that 31 people have DIED while awaiting appeals against ESA medicals that found them fit to work.
40% of decisions to deny ESA are overturned at the appeal stage. Appeals have so far cost the taxpayer £80 million and the contract with private company Atos to manage these medicals is worth £801 million over ten years. Atos is yet to have any financial penalities imposed upon it for inaccurate reports resulting from the medicals it has conducted.

That's me done, hospital appointment later and typically the day I need to leave the house my lungs are behaving terribly. Fingers' crossed the vote in the House of Lords helps bring back common sense and support & respect for disabled people across the country.

Cameron’s attack on ‘sicknote culture’ could spectacularly backfire

Speaking today to the Daily Mail about sickness benefits, David Cameron couldn’t have been more right when he said the “whole system is in a mess”. But his new proposals are likely to make things worse.

Cameron is keen to “press ahead” with stripping GPs of the ability to sign people off work for more than four weeks. After this period an independent assessor will be needed to verify if that person needs to be off sick. Considering this is the same Government that wants to give control of the majority of the NHS budget to GPs, its faith in local doctors seems surprisingly contradictory.  With the Government still embroiled in arguments with clinicians over its planned NHS reforms, the Government could find there is little appetite for these new proposals with either GPs or the electorate - indeed an Ipsos Mori survey in June this year showed that nearly nine in ten respondents trust their doctors to tell the truth.

What is clear is that, if implemented, these changes will add another expensive layer of bureaucracy onto a benefits system this is already struggling to cope.

Atos Healthcare is the independent assessor contracted by the Government to carry out the Working Capability Assessment (WCA) that the vast majority of applicants for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) must undergo. Frankly, the assessment isn’t working. 40% of decisions that people are ‘fit to work’ are overturned at the appeal stage, and these original decisions are very heavily based on the findings of the WCA. It is not solely ‘borderline’ cases that are eliciting appeals. In June evidence was submitted to a parliamentary select committee that highlighted the case of Mr C who died in the five months between his medical assessment, in which he was declared fit to work, and his appeal hearing. In February this year Scotland’s Evening Times reported the deaths from chronic illnesses of two men who were waiting for appeals to be heard against their recent loss of Incapacity Benefits. I could go on.

The Government already pays Atos £801 million over a ten year period yet, despite many ministerial promises of improvement, it’s clear that the Government has a long way to go until it gets to grips with how to assess how someone’s illness affects their ability to work. Until it manages to get WCA appeal rates under control, there is little point adding another hefty bill to the taxpayer’s purse to extend the number of ill people required to undergo independent assessments.

Cameron says that GPs “resent being asked to sign sicknotes” yet I can’t imagine any GP embracing a system that might tell patients to go back to work against their own doctors’ advice. And what will happen to those patients who are told they are fit to work when they aren’t? Will their pay be stopped while they appeal the decision? Will they face being sacked for ‘lying’ to their employer?

I can only presume that in these tough economic times, in which many people are struggling with the steep rise in the cost of living, Cameron believes that cracking down on “sickness fraud” will be a vote winner amongst the electorate. Yet that argument only holds when the wider public holds an ‘us’ and ‘them’ view – when we believe that it would never be ‘us’ who are presumed to be lying about being ill.

The Government is only getting away with the terrible mess surrounding the WCA, and the staggering £80 million cost to the taxpayer to manage the hefty appeals process, because it isn’t yet seen as a mainstream concern.  As soon as anyone who is off ill for more than 28 days is told to undergo similar tests - and the word spreads about what a hit and miss process it truly is - Cameron could face a massive backlash against his benefits policies. Most people want to work hard and show loyalty to their employer: in exchange they expect to be able to take time off to recover from unexpected illnesses, even if that recovery process takes longer than hoped. I can see few people accepting this greater state intrusion into their lives.

Are disability cuts just aimed at 'scroungers'?

I'm in hospital for the next couple of weeks trying to get healthy for my upcoming wedding (one month to go!). I've just taken part in a Guardian panel piece about yesterday's Hardest Hit March which demonstrated against the Government's plethora of cuts against disabled people.

I know there seems to be a prevailing concept in the wider society that these cuts are justified because it is only effecting those that aren't truly ill and just want an easy life. But that really isn't the case. I wasn't well enough to go on the march yesterday so to do my bit I've compiled some news stories about how disabled people are already being effected by cuts and their fears for the future. Please just spend thirty minutes reading around the issue with an open mind.

The Guardian is obviously a good place to start but there have been stories cropping up in even the more right wing media. Here's a selection of writing to get everyone thinking:
Guardian: Disabled people are marching for their lives
Guardian: It is now officially unsustainable to support disabled people
The Sun: No Cash as leg may grow back
The Mirror: Amputee loses benefit after walking
Scotland's Evening Times: Call for fairer benefits test as men [declared fit to work] die
Guardian: 'The Medical was an absolute joke' Heavily researched piece on flawed ESA medical tests
The Independent: Disability charities raise welfare concerns

The Government is implicated in creating negative attitudes to disabled

It is the 40 years since the first Disability Act was enacted and to mark the occasion the BBC commissioned a survey into the public's attitude to disabled people. Interestingly 90% of people thought the Government should do more to help disabled people into work. I found this outlook really refreshing as I recently wrote a piece for the Guardian discussing the need for the Government to recognise that disabled employment must be a two-way conversation: disabled people must be willing to work but employers must be willing to hire. Despite the Government refusing to discuss the fact that it is harder for disabled people to find work, it was great that the average person recognises it as a problem.

Where the BBC survey results were less positive, were in its findings that 40% of people think disabled people would "refuse work even when they have been found capable of doing it". This figure rose to over 50% amongst young respondents and those on low incomes.

Clearly there is a negative perception of disabled people in the UK, which can undoubtedly be attributed in part to right-wing media representation of the disabled. The Daily Mail is notorious for this. A recent front page screamed,  "75% of claimants are fit to work", and carried on: "Tough new benefits test weed out the workshy".

You expect this kind of thing from the Daily Mail. But what shocked me is that the 75% figure came from a press release from the Department of Work and Pensions. And the figure is wrong. So it amounts to blatant Government propaganda. 

The Government has reached its 75% figure by adding together the 39% of people found 'fit to work' and the 36% of people who have removed their claim during the assessment process. This 36% figure is problematic as there is much anecdotal evidence that those withdrawing their claims are those suffering from mental illness who found the process too frustrating and had a negative impact upon their health condition. So the truth is that the Government has no idea what happens to these 36% of people, as it doesn't track those who withdraw their claim. Which also means that the Government has no idea why they stop the claims process, although of course the Mail is quick to claim its because they were merely 'trying it on'.

But let's turn our attention to the number of successful appeals against ATOS's 'fit to work' decisions. When you follow the 'Notes to editors' link on the DWP's very own press release it reveals a more in-depth report which shows that every month on average 40% of appeals against ATOS are upheld and the appellant is awarded ESA. On average, one third of claimants found 'fit to work' appealed against their decision and 40% were successful with their appeal. So if you do the math, once the whole process including appeals is complete, the DWP is wrong to say 39% are fit to work. In fact, 34% are found fit to work. So overall, at best 70% of ESA claimants are 'fit to work' although my guess is that this would be lower still if those 36% who dropped out of the process were given the right initial support to continue with their claim.

Let me remind you that the Government has access to this data, I've taken it directly from its own report. Yet although the release quotes Grayling saying he is "determined to get the medical test right" the successful appeals against the test are entirely omitted from his ESA headline statistics. 5% may be a small difference, but it is a difference none-the-less when you think that this current Government is so focused on transparency and providing accurate information to its citizens.

So it is seems that the Government has decided to spin the statistics associated with who is and isn't fit to work. Perhaps it suits its current agenda for the public to think that the majority of ESA claimants are 'scroungers'? Perhaps ministers realise they can only get the public to accept their massive welfare cuts if the public think the money is going to the undeserving. 

And this might explain why, in today's BBC survey, the number of people who think disabled people choose not to work rises amongst those people who are most struggling to get by in life or get a job. So the Government at least seems to be doing well at one thing: pitting one set of welfare cut losers against another.

Chris Grayling and his mysterious employment figures

The Government is always keen for school children to improve their basic numeracy skills but don't seem so great at working out sums themselves.

Here's an interesting conundrum.

Speaking at the Tory party conference, Work and Pensions Minister, Chris Grayling said he hoped that about half of those claiming incapacity benefit can be helped back into work. That means from a total of 2.5 million currently claiming incapacity benefit, he is hoping about 1.25million people will be moved back into work.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is expecting 2 million jobs to be created in the next five years. This figure is already considered to be highly optimistic. In comparison, after the recession of 1980/81 it took seven years to create 2 million jobs. Following the 1991/1992 recession it took nine and a half years to create 2 million jobs. And  the average annual GDP growth rate after these previous recessions was 3.6% and 3.2% respectively, which is significantly higher than the current 2.5% GDP growth rate the OBR has predicted.

But for argument's sake, let's say that the OBR is right in its predictions - it still means that Mr Grayling expects those who have been claiming incapacity benefit to acquire 62.5% of these newly created jobs.

I've tried to find some figures on an employer's attitude to taking on disabled people or the long-term ill, but do let me know if you're aware of any more recent studies. In a 2004 study that looked at 1000 small business owners, 45% said they thought it would be 'quite difficult/very difficult' to employ a disabled person. I appreciate it's hard to extrapolate this research out into the wider employment market, but if this attitude was found to be genuinely indicative of the overall employer attitude across the nation, that would mean that of the potential 2 million new jobs the Government hopes will be created, the disabled or those on incapacity benefit would be considered for about 55 % of these positions - or 1.1million of the new jobs. In short, that means someone on incapacity benefit would have to be appointed for every single job available from employers who have a positive attitude towards employing the long-term ill - and there would still be 150,000 jobs too few.

To me it seems very unlikely that someone who has been off sick for a significant period of time, or is disabled with special work-place requirements or has a history of mental health issues will find themselves at the top of the pile when it comes to finding work.

So, Mr Grayling, where did you get your figure from? If I've done my sums wrong then please do correct me.

Or did you actually mean, you expect 1.25million people to be moved from Incapacity benefit onto Job Seeker's Allowance and left alone to figure out how best to get work, without any of the specialist support that the new Employment Support Allowance promises the ill or disabled?

A progressive government: Schizophrenic man who has just spent 6 months in mental institute told to find work

I heard of this story yesterday via Twitter (yes I am a convert) and I thought it worth sharing - mainly because it only happened this week and it shows that the much-derided medical test for ESA is affecting real, vulnerable people now - it's not just a dry political argument with which to bandy insults at Prime Minister's Question Time.

A man with Schizophrenia has just been taken off Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and put onto Job Seeker's Allowance. Earlier this year he was discharged from a mental institution where he had spent the previous six months. He is now living in residential accommodation, which in itself shows he is not yet healthy enough to live a fully independent lifestyle. He has also not worked for 10 years.

The real shock behind this story is the way in which this change has happened. He was asked to attend a medical test which is administered by a company called ATOS, who have the contract from the Government's Work and Pension department. A person has to score over 15 points to be deemed eligible for some form of ESA. This man scored 0. Yes, you read that correctly, ZERO. As he has a clear diagnosis of a severe mental illness this score tells me either that ATOS doesn't recognise the debilitating nature of a mental illness or its test criteria are entirely inadequate for unearthing the effects of mental illness on a person's capacity to work.

Either way the man has been moved from ESA straight onto JSA - he has not even been moved to the lower rate of ESA which would mean he would have been given greater support on how to go about preparing himself for work and identifying which employers are accepting of a long history of mental ill-health and unemployment. How is a job centre employee with basic training on how to get the average Joe back into work going to know how to deal with a schizophrenic not yet capable of fully independent living?

I'm beginning to warm to the Work and Pensions minister Ian Duncan Smith, he seems to be intriguingly genuine in his desire to reform our benefits system so that, in his words, people don't get left behind. And clearly the man of our story has been left to languish for ten years on incapacity benefit. But it's obvious the current welfare reduction drive is more focused on reducing the cost of welfare than exercising any common sense or, dare I say it, empathy towards those with long-term ill health.

Rumours are going round Twitter that Ian Duncan Smith has threatened to resign 12 times since taking office due to consistent, unyielding clashes with the Treasury. With stories such as this schizophrenic man surfacing, it seems clear that the battle is far from over between government members who just wish to reduce the cost of welfare and those who wish to reform welfare to help those who are on it achieve a better life.

I can only hope that the schizophrenic man in question appeals the decision so that at the very least he is awarded lower rate ESA and given proper support in finding work. If not, he clearly has very little chance of ever gaining employment and will be left to live in even greater poverty than before. That's a 'progressive' government for you.

How to make your voice heard about benefits

Just found a great disability charity (www.lcdisability.org) that also campaigns for disabled people and found out some great info - the government is inviting individual responses and experiences to: the Work Capability Assessment used to determine if someone is eligible for ESA; amendments to ESA in general and ideas for overall changes to the benefits system.

I've posted more info and links below. It might take a bit of time but we live in a democracy and should take every available opportunity to make our opinions heard, especially in such austere times.

Please pass on to anyone currently in receipt of ESA or any disabled benefits at all - and anyone, disabled or not, can provide ideas about the benefits system.

I'll post my response on my blog once I've sent my ideas and opinions.

WCA
For the first five years of ESA the Government has to hold an independent review of the test used (the Work Capability Assessment). They have appointed Professor Malcolm Harrington to carry out this year’s review. He is asking for people to share their experiences of the current test for ESA. You can find out more and respond by visiting www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-cap-ass-call-for-evidence.pdf . The deadline for responding is 10th September 2010.

ESA in general
To introduce proposed changes to the test for ESA (the Work Capability Assessment) the Government needs to introduce a new Statutory Instrument (this is a type of legislation). The Social Security Advisory Committee looks at any new Statutory Instrument related to benefits and they are holding a consultation on the proposed changes to the test for ESA. If you want to read more and respond to the proposed changes please visit www.ssac.org.uk/press/press23.asp . The deadline for responding is 10th September 2010.

Benefits overall
The Government are currently looking at changing the benefits system and are currently asking people for their ideas on what they think the benefits system should look like. If you want to find out more and submit your own ideas then please visit www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/21st-century-welfare . The deadline for responding is 1st October 2010.

Behind the media furore lies the real cost of disability benefit fraud

It's a bad time to be disabled.

The populist way to solve the massive UK deficit, in large part due to multiple bank bail-outs, is to reduce the welfare budget. And attention has turned itself time and again to the cost of supporting disabled people with the media often misrepresenting or even falsely presenting the facts.

In a recent Telegraph article about the intended government use of credit agency Experian to weed out fraudulent benefit claimants, the paper stated: "The agencies will get a “bounty” payment for each fraudster they identify under government plans to cut the £5.2billion annual fraud bill". Except that this figure is not correct.

When publishing data on benefit monies, the Government bundles erroneous payments and fraudulent payments into one headline figure. In fact, last year the cost of fraud  was £1.5 billion compared to payments made due to error of £3.7 billion. So why the media misrepresentation?

The Sun similarly misreported benefits statistics on Monday. In its campaign against benefit scroungers (surely a campaign against overtly risky banking practices would save this country more money in the long-run) it highlighted the fact that almost 900,000 people have claimed incapacity benefits for over a decade. It went on to say: "A scheme introduced in 2008 by the previous government has so far found three-quarters of those claiming incapacity benefit were able to work". The scheme it alludes to is the Employment Support Allowance medical test that has been heavily criticised by disabled charities, doctors and even the Government for passing too many claimants as fit to work when they are clearly not - one extreme example was telling a man with terminal lung cancer to go back to work when he only had five months left to live.

The Government itself  is surprised at the volume of people declared fit to work by the new ESA medical test and has asked for an urgent review. Labour was previously expecting to cut the incapacity benefit recipients by 20% but instead this new test is so inflexible and basic that more than 60 per cent are being declared fit to work - three times the initial estimate.


The Sun reported none of the controversy surrounding this new test, clearly using the statistics to persuade the average reader that most long-term sick are faking it. Moreover, the paper talks about the cost to the taxpayer but makes no allowance for the fact that many disabled people who find themselves on long-term benefits have worked at some point during their life and contributed taxes like everyone else.

In fact government figures published by the House of Commons Work and Pensions committee suggest that benefit fraud has REDUCED since 2001 from 2.2 per cent to 0.8 per cent between 2008-2009 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). This fraud figure represents housing benefit, Disability Living Allowance, pension credit and carers' and attendance allowance. It does not include data for fraudulent claims for ESA, incapacity benefit, Job Seeker's or Income Support as the Government had not been able to provide statistics for publication! Extrapolating out from this statistic it is fair to say that out of 889,000 long-term disability claimants only 7,192 are tricking the system. Or to put it another way of the estimated £460 million spent each year on incapacity benefit for the 889,000 long-term sick, only £3,600,000 was misspent. I bet you'll never find that statistic printed in The Sun.

The harsh truth isn't that the long-term sick are scrounging benefits but that there are actually many serious illnesses that are incurable and highly debilitating. Medical advances often mean it's possible to keep someone alive but not keep them well enough to allow them to work.

So hiding behind all this anger at disabled benefits is this: Does society want to pay out money to support disabled people whom it clearly sees as no benefit to society as they are unable to pay taxes? Perhaps it's easier for a Government to complain about people tricking the system than to admit that it no longer wishes to pick up the bill for caring for the sick?

Would you hire a disabled person? Honestly?

So how many people have filled in job application forms and come across questions about your health such as: "How many days have you been sick? How does this reflect your usual level of sickness?" and then the sentence "An offer of appointment will be subject to completion of a health questionnaire."

Under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) it's illegal to discrimate against candidates on the basis of a disability. But why would any company ask such questions if it doesn't have the intention of weeding out the physically weaker amongst it's candidates?

The DDA act has a major loophole that massively works against a disabled person. You're meant to disclose a disability BEFORE you are given a job offer, in theory so that the company knows it can make reasonable adjustments to your condition. If you don't do so then you risk adjustments not being made to suit your disability, or worse, being accussed of misleading your employer about your abilities. But how would you ever know that the employer balked at the thought of hiring someone disabled and turned you down for the position purely because of your illness? Disabled people have to make the decision whether to declare or not to declare. Personally if your illness isn't obvious I recommend keeping quiet. If it is obvious, directly raise the issue in your job interview, even if your employer does not, and make your case for why it won't affect your work.


Recent government proposals have focused on getting people off incapacity benefits and back into work. Ian Duncan Smith talks passionately about not letting people "languish" on incapacity benefit, and wants to work with them to help improve their job prospects.

But let's just acknowledge the white elephant in the room surrounding these proposals. Improving a disabled person's attitude to work is just half of it. Employers also need to change their attitude to disabled people.

A survey carried out in June 2009 for the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) found that 73% of employers would not hire people on Incapacity Benefit (now Employment and Support Allowance) or older people.

Every business needs to make a profit and I suppose an uneducated employer believes that someone with a disability will take more time off sick, complete less work and be overall less productive.

Well as someone who worked very hard for years while living with CF the reality is different:

• I took less time off work for run of the mill illnesses as I didn't want to seem like I was always being ill. 
• Since I was little I've been subject to a very strict medical regime, which when translated to a work environment meant I was incredibly well organised and worked very efficiently.
• I was good at problem solving as I've often had to find ingenious ways to manage my health while out and about (think sitting in a police riot van to use my electric nebuliser when I couldn't find a plug anywhere else) - lateral thinking that is easy transferable and beneficial to a working environment. 
• And crises at work get solved because I've gone through worse things in life - a cool, level head can normally find a way to solve even the biggest cock-ups

Overall many disabled people have an attitude and life skills which bring diversity and strength to a work force. But unless perceptions radically change amongst employers disabled people will continue to face insurmountable barriers when trying to get back into work - work which is hard enough for anyone to find during these weak economic times.

If the government really wants to reduce what it spends on disabled people it must find a way to open the eyes of employers so they become willing to see past their fears and instead recognise the positive aspects an illness can bring.

Dying man deemed fit to work - an omen for incapacity benefit cuts?

A couple of years ago I went on a date with a guy who declared over dinner that:
"As long as you've got both legs there is no reason why anyone can't run the marathon".
Before we'd even chosen dessert, I realised this wasn't the man for me - he wasn't really going to 'get' the whole Cystic Fibrosis thing.

Yesterday the Government announced further measures against disability benefits, looking to cut back on those who receive Incapacity benefit, or the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) that has replaced it, and move them back into work. My concern is that those who reassess claimants may well turn out to be like my 'Marathon man' date - and just not get the huge impact hidden illnesses have on a person's everyday capacity to function. Lord knows, I never thought there would come a day when I looked at a single flight of stairs with such trepidation, but what is easy for the well person can literally feel like a mountain to climb for the ill.


The Citizens advice bureau released a report in March this year, outlining their concerns surrounding the ESA Work Capability Assessment that assesses what work new claimants of ESA can actually do. It found that a man with Parkinson's who couldn't stand for more than ten minutes, slurred his speech and has significant short-term memory loss was deemed able to work.  A man who had incurable stomach and bowel cancer had been found fit to work as he'd mentioned in his medical that he does try to go for a short walk once a day. He successfully appealed the decision, but he should never have had to go through the stress of needing to do so in the first place.

Both these cases deal with 'hidden' disabilities, where the claimant has all their limbs and can move around, albeit with incredible discomfort. I've talked before about the ESA form in a previous blog, but its over-simplistic form and the short WCA medical assessment seem to place too much focus on whether someone's body can mechanically move, not asking questions on the time involved in medical routines (3-4 hours a day for me), extreme fatigue and pace of deterioration that's at the crux of most 'hidden' illnesses.

David Harker, Chief Executive at Citizens Advice said: "The current test to determine eligibility for ESA isn’t working. Seriously ill and disabled people are being severely let down by the crude approach of the Work Capability Assessment. A much more sophisticated approach is needed, that not only looks at a person’s ability to undertake a certain task on the day of the test, but considers supporting medical evidence and other aspects, such as the variability of a person’s condition and the external barriers they face in finding work."

A report by the Depart of Work and Pensions, found that over a two month period, 68 per cent of new claimants for ESA were found fit to work. Such a high percentage makes me fear that ESA is a benefit that the UK government (past and present) is increasingly loath to support.

Talking about the need to reduce Icapacity benefit in the drive to cut the UK's deficit, George Osbourne said: "It's a choice we all face. It is not a choice we can duck". I'd like to add nor should it be a choice between saving money and forcing seriously ill people back to work due to ill-thought through assessments.