The beginning of the end of the UK Work Capability Assessment?

[alex3619]

The UK governments seems about to launch a radical rethink of disability next year, though it is not clear that this really does supersede the current approach.

http://worktestwhistleblower.blogspot.co.uk/

Today the DWP announced the demise of the Work Capability Assessment - not in so many words obviously, that's not how they operate; but its new Disability and Health Employment Strategy has been published on its website. In it, the DWP claims that in future it will focus on removing the obstacles that prevent people with long-term health problems from finding a job and keeping it.

This is in marked contrast to the approach used up until now, where a doctor or a nurse was asked to make a clinical assessment of the person's disabilities and then to attempt to estimate the likely degree of difficulty that individual might face in an unspecified, hypothetical workplace. With this shift in direction, the DWP has sounded the death knell for this disastrously implemented quasi-clinical examination.

Is this even more clever propaganda? The devil is in the details, and in what is implemented rather than claimed. It could be a major improvement, or just more gloss.

I think this might be the paper in question: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...disability-and-health-employment-strategy.pdf

The disability and health employment strategy:the discussion so far

page 51

Tailored conditionality UC will provide all claimants, including those who are disabled or who have a health condition, with personalised conditionality and back-to-work support from the beginning of their claim. Claimants will be expected to sign up to delivering a clear set of responsibilities. The conditionality regime will be flexible enough to take account of a claimant’s capability and circumstances. So any requirements that are imposed on claimants will be based on what can reasonably be expected.

This could involve imposing expectations on the disabled, particularly if neither the doctors nor the person have any clear idea on their limitations, which is often the case with ME.

I still see this as a biopsychosocial approach, but its more carrot than stick perhaps.

These comments were originally here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...slams-benefits-assessments.27086/#post-414179

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Spin, incompetence, arrogance, inhumanity, lies are the trademark of this unbelievably bad government, worst in British history
If they said snow was white I'd expect it to be made of carbon, reflect little light and be good for making fires

so no I don't believe them

 

[alex3619]

Reading into things, I think it likely that in time it will be proved they have achieved three things:

1. Cost the government a lot of money, to no substantive benefit.
2. Harmed a great many disabled citizens, including thousands of deaths.
3. Cost ATOS money because all this can't be done on a budget . (Poor poor ATOS)

So they are running scared, or should be. Governments running scared often turn about, but they hope people will not recall what it was they did wrong, nor what their core policy is.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Thing is, Ian Duncan Smith, scumbag in charge, has repeatedly lied in parliament, got away with that and many screw ups, it's like the government cannot be touched

"Scorched Earth" is the only answer to our government's corrupt, stupid, despotic, undemocratic rule.
(this does not necessarily mean like nuke 'em! rather, complete eradication of the *system*, arrest and trial for most of 'em, certainly both "Front benches". It's just gone too far, they have effectively, "undid the safety catches" of our Democracy)

to show how ludicrous it is, the UK has spent billions on two new aircraft carriers...that wont' have ANY planes for at least 10 years, and those planes would cost $350 million each...why not drop gold ingots on enemies at that price, hm?
Who are we fighting? goat humpers armed with AK47s and homemade bombs, so we spend millions to kill dweebs armed for $100?!
Colossal cluster****.
And they get away with it AND want to waste a minimum of another £100 billion on nuclear sub replacement.
There is NO accountability. :/

 

[MeSci]

I don't think @SilverbladeTE likes the government very much, but I'm not sure...

 

[MeSci]

The thing that had been most worrying for me personally, after reading an earlier draft/version of the Universal Credit system, was the expectation that self-employed people would be earning the minimum wage within a year. I have been self-employed for about 9 years, I think, and due to the ME I cannot earn anywhere near the minimum wage. If I could, I wouldn't need government support! So it seemed like yet another government scheme that failed those who were most in need, similarly to support to install solar panels, which I had wanted for years. Either the homeowner had to pay towards the panels, or they had to have a south-facing roof large enough for the 'rent-a-roof' scheme. No money and a small roof - no help, and consequently for many - no heating, even in freezing winters.

A document detailing concerns about the earlier UC rules is here.

There are other horrors detailed in there, such as reference to self-employed people having to submit monthly accounts. This year I have struggled to even get my head round my annual accounts due to brain fog. Having to submit them monthly would take so much time from my actual work that my already-paltry earnings would plummet further.

Roll on state pension (3 years to go).

I don't want to be wishing my life away!

 

[Valentijn]

I read those sorts of statements with the same skepticism I give to UK CFS clinics. There's usually something that sounds good if you don't know better, but never any of the explicit statements or commitments needed for a member of the public to make a well-educated decision.

To some extent it's an improvement that they are feeling an intense need to improve their image. In the process of doing that, they'll likely have to improve their actual treatment of sick and disabled people. But they'll be dragging their feet and probably not doing one whit more than absolutely necessary to avoid being lynched in the streets.

So my guess is that they'll make the smallest improvements which they can't avoid. However, that's still better than the alternative: things staying the same or getting worse.

To keep getting these tiny concessions, the disabled and their supporters are going to have to keep pushing and pushing. If they back down briefly at the sign of concessions, in the hope of further future improvements, the agencies involved will happily stall all progress again.

 

[MeSci]

I've pulled out a few pieces that may be of particular interest.

The comparatively high numbers of disabled people in work who are self-employed already presents an encouraging picture: 16 per cent of disabled people in work are self-employed, compared to 13 per cent of working non-disabled people.

(Reason for many: inadequate opportunity and flexibility provided by employers, but they have to put a positive spin on it!)

For disabled people and people with health conditions, a long period of unemployment can exacerbate their health condition.

(I wonder what the figures are for this, and for the proportion made more ill by the demands of paid work. My last job certainly did my health no good, physically or mentally - quite the opposite.)

We are proposing the development of a new Gateway to employment services for disabled people and people with health conditions. It will use an initial evaluation of an individual's strengths, skills, capabilities and specific support needs to direct them to the most appropriate employment support for them. This process could be carried out online, over the telephone or face-to-face.

The Gateway process will be light-touch, utilising existing information wherever possible, and will be based on an individual's strengths and needs, rather than the benefits they receive, so that we can offer more personalised and tailored support to people.

So people with advanced skills or higher degrees won't be pushed into doing work that doesn't fulfil them but is more like a living death? They do say

The new offer will treat individuals as partners in the process. Following referral to the specialist offer, each individual will be supported by a specialist adviser to identify their needs and support requirements. Together, they will develop a comprehensive and effective employment plan which will take account of all relevant factors affecting the individual’s ability and availability to work. These could include work history, skills, strengths, qualifications, motivations, aspirations and their health condition.

To ensure that people are directed towards the right type of support, the Gateway should focus less on a person's health condition or benefit status, and more on their individual strengths and needs.

 

[Bob]

Here's the recent (27 February 2014) UK parliamentary backbench debate on welfare benefits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-26367342

It had some good speakers, esp the first speaker, IMO.

The House is almost empty partly because Angela Merkel was addressing parliament elsewhere.
(Not that that's a good excuse to miss this debate.)

 

[MeSci]

Here's the recent (27 February 2014) UK parliamentary backbench debate on welfare benefits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-26367342

It had some good speakers, esp the first speaker, IMO.

The House is almost empty partly because Angela Merkel was addressing parliament elsewhere.
(Not that that's a good excuse to miss this debate.)

I missed the first 20 minutes but saw/heard most of the rest. Powerful stuff (even excluding the usual drama from Dennis Skinner).

For those not familiar with DS, he is well-known for his parliamentary attempts to win Oscars or equivalents.)

 

[MeSci]

Incidentally, what do people think of completely doing away with work capability assessments, as suggested by some? I find it very patronising when people talk about claimants being 'written off' or similar by being 'left' on benefits. Are we not all autonomous beings? IIRC there are clear instructions to claimants in the various literature sent to them about their obligation to notify the authorities of any change in circumstances. As most people want to work, can they not be trusted to know when they are well enough to work, and when they are not?

If the government spent a fraction of the money they waste assessing claimants on incentivising employers to make it easier for disabled people to work for them instead, might we get much better value for money?

 

[Valentijn]

Incidentally, what do people think of completely doing away with work capability assessments, as suggested by some? I find it very patronising when people talk about claimants being 'written off' or similar by being 'left' on benefits. Are we not all autonomous beings? IIRC there are clear instructions to claimants in the various literature sent to them about their obligation to notify the authorities of any change in circumstances. As most people want to work, can they not be trusted to know when they are well enough to work, and when they are not?

If the government spent a fraction of the money they waste assessing claimants on incentivising employers to make it easier for disabled people to work for them instead, might we get much better value for money?

I definitely disagree with the bullshit about focusing on "helping" the sick and disabled by pretty much forcing them to jump through bureaucratic and pointless hoops. The work group in general seems like a waste of space and resources, since barely anyone goes from that group into a job. At most it should be an option available for those who are interested and could benefit from it. But it should be 100% optional for any sick or disabled people, unless something drastically changes in the workplace and sick and disabled people suddenly have a chance in hell of being employed.

More generally regarding reasonable assessments and sensible incentives to work ... these are good ideas, and I agree with the basic premise. But I think they are tools which will almost invariably be exploited by various agencies in an inappropriate and abusive manner. Until and unless these programs are being implemented in a truly compassionate and honest manner, I don't think the government can be trusted with they power that it accords to them.

 

[A.B.]

Incidentally, what do people think of completely doing away with work capability assessments, as suggested by some?

Are you referring to universal basic income?

 

[MeSci]

Are you referring to universal basic income?

I wasn't, but I do support Basic Income aka Citizens' Income.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

I wasn't, but I do support Basic Income aka Citizens' Income.

Only way society can function in the future, most jobs will be gone by middle of the century, money/Taxes is all a complete joke (no real existence, fractional reserve banking and taxes paid by citizens are a joke they fund nothing except when local taxes, nation government are sucked up into massive debt to the banks)

 

[taniaaust1]

I saw something in my main states newspaper (in Sth Australia, the disability backward aussie state).. the other day which looked like something you'd expect to see in a main newpaper where you are there in England.

It was about how most (something like 80%.. I cant remember the number but it was some crazily high number) were putting in fraudulent claims to try to get a disability pension. (that conclusion they'd come to was due to how many who apply for a pension get rejected in their claim and end up giving up after appeals).

Its crazy in my state. I had to appeal 3 times and my case was taken interstate before I got a disability pension and I was so sick I couldnt even stay seated at my appointments and was on the floor and they still prounounced me capable of working. Anyway this article was basically making connect those on disability with probably also having fraud claims.

if I hadnt appealed 3 times and finally won my case (only cause it had gone to be heard in another state).. my claim would of been considered a fraud one too. The article would of definately scared ME/CFS people off of trying to get a pension they should be on.

 

[snowathlete]

It is definitely going to be made worse. The government has already said that they want to cut benefits more.
I am not looking forward to these changes. It will be a whole new unknown battlefield of the governments choosing.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

yeah they CLAIM they are "fraudulent" which is a lie, like me, they are DENIED to be "disabled" even when some are quadriplegic, dying, etc.

best thing that could happen to the UK is a nickel-iron meteor turns the centre of London into a new lake

 

[surethom]

They just need to get rid of the point system & have a medical professional sit & ask what's wrong & run tests.

Too many are too ill to work but not ill enough to get help.