Question re PIP atos assessment

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

Well what is interesting to me... while people who complain are typically doing so with a dodgy assessment report at hand or on its way.. it is those who you prompt to get the report having had no inclination to look at it (or even being oblivious to such existence).. when they get it they almost always disagree with parts of it or find inconsequential errors at least... perhaps like my wife being wrongly named.

On the second paragraph well of course PIP is pretty new.. but we can extrapolate from WCA problems... since ATOS HC is performing some of the assessments and almost all the problems reported exist(ed) within the much more established problems of the WCA. Investigative documentaries and disgruntled HCPs have typically come through that. Can we extrapolate... yes I would say so.. the methodology is similar... the protocols similar.. the criteria different... the HCPs probably often the same (mine clearly had done WCAs before and advised that as I'd had one I'd find this just the same.. I think that constitutes their claim "The purpose and nature of the consultation has been clearly explained to the claimant")... and the institutional failings often the same... the same problems are reported. But documentaries.. hmm I'll look later if I have time but I think Dispatches and maybe Panorama did them.

The claimants themselves. Yes I'll bet PIP2s often poorly completed but I suspect corner cutting at the private medical contractors is mirrored at DWP... I see no evidence my PIP2 was ever looked at by any party to any notable degree... there was no contest of it even where they disagreed with claims in it. Unfortunately many claimants are clueless... some clearly don't even know how the benefit is assessed or what criteria exists if any... and some seem to take an approach of 'I'm disabled so it'll work out I expect'. Some clearly have the very disabilities that make these processes impossible or difficult to engage.

On the HCPs... well I suspect Philanthropist may not be far wide of mark. HCPs are typically in their profession with particular professional outlook.. but it is known that these assessments are seen as the low of the low in the profession... a bit like a dodgy dentist having to take a job as a hotel cleaner. It could be a good earner for those struggling professionally and the requirements are pretty basic. That HCPs would typically do this for money rather than any professionalism.. I doubt many people go into medical professions planning to assess disabled people for benefits... so you are likely to get the dregs. The attitudes conveyed are often deeply dismissive.. and quite frankly the technical outlook is lacking... whilst the HCP in my case got many descriptors right... they fundamentally got the reasons why wrong.

But yes I agree with your general themes and it is good people like you are out there helping. Clearly many claimants need that help and the appeal success rates continue to show that. I do think the outwardly dismissive attitude of the HCP reported here is at the edge of malpractice rather than middle of it... but I think it's probably an approach that unchallenged from the outside will be acceptable within. Perhaps greater and more aggressive complaint is required to regulatory bodies of the HCPs and the private medical contractor they work for.. as well as in any detail of contention of evidence in claim. If HCPs think they're being watched they may improve... next time I'll take an owl with huge eyes and call it Hawkeye Harriet... or perhaps I'll just say it's my wife... that should set things off on the right foot.