Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

healy

cit_k wrote: »

But on the other hand, the DWP are hardly likely to renew the contract with ATOS if the government targets of so many failing are not met....

They are more likely to lose the contract if there are too many compaints so in fact more people pass than should.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

The Doctors/Nurses do not get paid for failing people, they get a flat rate fee per medical whether the claimant passes or fails.

ATOS and 'medical experts' get their contract renewed on the basis of helping DWP to reach targets.

Quote: 11. July 2006 - The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

NASA_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

ATOS and 'medical experts' get their contract renewed on the basis of helping DWP to reach targets.

Quote: 11. July 2006 - The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

Wow, that's never been posted before:rolleyes:

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

ATOS and 'medical experts' get their contract renewed on the basis of helping DWP to reach targets.

Quote: 11. July 2006 - The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

That is not true and that tired old link you have posted numerous times does not prove your theory.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

That is not true and that tired old link you have posted numerous times does not prove your theory.

You think that the DWP's aims and targets play no part in awarding the contract to ATOS - clearly all firms have them foremost in mind - why should DWP be different.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

You think that the DWP's aims and targets play no part in awarding the contract to ATOS - clearly all firms have them foremost in mind - why should DWP be different.

Show me some proof and I would believe you, as you have none I think you are wrong.

There have been Doctors who have complained about having to pass too many claimants so complaints are avoided, this disproves your theory.

Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets.

I_luv_cats

This "Atos" computer medical system has been complained of before and highlighted in my CAB appeal submission last year.

The CAB did mention something around Social Security commissionaires concern/case/???

I was lucky to have stumbled across a person that could help me.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

Show me some proof and I would believe you, as you have none I think you are wrong.

There have been Doctors who have complained about having to pass too many claimants so complaints are avoided, this disproves your theory.

Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets.

Wrong - no surprise - look yourself e.g. "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Wrong - no surprise - look yourself e.g. "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

As always you are wrong, you have no proof. What you have said said does not refer to failing more people or targets.

I think people must be getting sick of you messing up their threads with the same old rubbish.

NASA_2

healy wrote: »

As always you are wrong, you have no proof. What you have said said does not refer to failing more people or targets.

I think people must be getting sick of you messing up their threads with the same old rubbish.

The guy quotes himself in his signature - its not exactly the sign of someone with modest impressions of himself - you should know by now that what Gary says is FACT!!!:p