Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

deeplyblue

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

1 question; If someone reaches 65 as it stands at present before 2013, do they "escape" the medical issue? Not that it effects me, I'm a little younger.

Here's another issue. The DWP are currently moving the retirement age for women up until it matches that of men, but only by slow stages. Still there must be some women who will be affected by this.

Suppose you would need to attend the medical board if you are called in 2013 (when they start this regime), but would miss it in 2016. Suppose that the year when you are entitled to receive your state pension is moved upward during the 2013-2016 period when they are retesting existing claimants.

Will the DWP treat this as a lottery (get called 3 months before your retirement date - hard luck?) or will they work out who is going to be coming up to retirement when, bearing in mind this sliding date for women, and for some men - as the retirement age is raised?

I'm betting this sort of issue is going to keep a whole office full of civil servants, and government policy advisers, being paid at London rates, for moths on end.

db

deeplyblue

easy wrote: »

But without a re-assessment the authorities don't know that he is no better. And altho' your son's condition is unlikely to improve, others may improve (or change in some ways). And the only way the authorities can know this, is by re-assessing. In your case, if your son's condition is worse, a re-assessment may result in higher benefits for you.

You can't expect them to pick and choose who they can/can't re-assess, that would make the whole process pointless.

As an earlier poster pointed out, someone with an indefinate award of DLA can always be called in for re-assessment anyway, even before the new proposals.

You recognise that some people get indefinite awards, and others don't. But you say, "You can't expect them to pick and chose who they can/can't re-assess."

It's true that they can re-assess anyone. But in practice there are quite a few people where it makes a lot of sense (fiancially for the state as saving the re-assessment process) to stamp their files "just leave this person be."

Examples include (and in some cases this already applies):

• the terminally ill
• those with serious mental incapacity (note - this does not necessarily mean the mentally ill, but rather those with severe learning difficulties, for example, or Alzheimer's or, severe autism.)
• those with chronic or progressive conditions, who are already severely affected (examples here might be MS, or MND)
• those with serious physical impairment (e.g. tetraplegics)

In most such cases they will already be on the highest levels of benefit, so there is no likelihood of them being uprated.

Say, " no one is exempt" is not a way of checking on the genuine, it's a way of sounding macho to those uninvolved who want to know that other people are suffering as well.

It's more efficient, as well as more humane, to acknowledge that some people are not going to get any better. Think of it as a form of triage!

db

deeplyblue

government_slave wrote: »

Deeplyblue Carers Allowance isnt £60 per week its just £53.90 and in order to get that pittance you have to be caring for a minimum of 35 hrs a week.

I did say, "~£60 per week" - meaning "about" just to give readers with no idea of how much is involved a rough idea. Some people have very little idea, and assume that carers are rolling in "tax-payers' money" in exchange for sitting around all day.

So yes, I do know that many carers are giving care not 35 hours a week, but something close to 24/7, since they are always on call, and can't expect more than a few hours unbroken sleep at any time. If carers were paid at the minimum wage rate for the bare 35 hours, they would get £207.55 a week.

I was merely pointing out that the Carer's Allowance is not generous enough to pay for a respite care out it. I suggested that saving up DLA (Care) to give the carer a break was a useful and entirely valid way of using the money. It's also financially sensible, since it can extend the amount of time which the carer can spend with the person getting the DLA. A sick carer is often financially disadvantageous to the welfare system.

I also know that in your position, even this sort of break can be very difficult to arrange, given the very precarious balancing act which having a severely autistic person in the family engenders, and their panic and rage when someone important disappears even for a short period. You have my profound sympathy. I also think that you should be given as much help as possible, with one assessment when your son reached adulthood, and a yearly form asking only, "Has anything in your circumstances changed?" in case your son has had to be institutionalised.

I wish you all the best.

db

deeplyblue

easy wrote: »

Well, we don't know, and I think the departments concerned don't know either, they will be spending time over the next couple of years trying to formulate a workable policy. Which is why I suggest anyone who is concerned/worried writes to the the minister.

Which is a more positive action than sitting worrying or moaning on a forum.

The suggestion of lobbying the minister - or your MP - is useful, though perhaps people could be pointed at the resources which will enable them to compose a suitable letter, and to find out who their MP is.

For finding your MP, try:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/

Perhaps anyone who has other useful links could add them.

As for "moaning"; well sometimes being able to contact others on an internet forum is a valuable outlet for those who are confined to their home by their own or someone else's disability. Most of us need a good whinge from time to time, and this is as good a place as any for those who can't go down the pub.

db

deeplyblue

jimbms wrote: »

You keep mentioning ATOS, the fact that this company are doing things although it does affect the end user and in such should be a serious consideration, does not detract from tha fact that if a proper system was in place then medical assessments should not be feared by the genuine. as for your statement "anyone genuine would object to the medical", I am genuine yet I don't object to my 3 yearly examinations, if you saw how these assessmentas are done when done correctly you would see how well it works. I do think from what you have said this ATOS crew should be got rid of before this comes into place, but if they are dumped I cannot see how you can object.

This is official policy on work capacity assessments, as carried out by ATOS,

Our [ATOS'] National Customer Relations Manager, Mr Pepper, has provided his comments

1. He confirms that an assessment of capacity was undertaken which is different to a diagnostic consultation. There is no requirement to have NHS medical records available for the assessment. When it is considered appropriate by the Healthcare Professional (HCP), further medical evidence can be requested from the customer's medical carers.

www.whywaitforever.c...

The Centre assesses people's functional ability through consultation, discussion and simple physical tests (e.g. reflex).

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322273?thread=7467661&latest=1)

For a further example of how ATOS work, take this:

The report cites the example of an engineer in his 50s who had recently undergone a triple bypass for heart disease and was being treated for incurable stomach and liver cancer, who was deemed fit for work. During his assessment he said that he walked daily (as part of his convalescence regime) and that he was able to raise his hands above his head; as a result he was registered ready to start looking for work.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/mar/23/employment-support-allowance-incapacity-benefit)

The report mentioned comes from the Citizens' Advice Bureau.

My "favourite" example comes from someone assessing whether someone with severe learning disabilities could work. The clerk asked them, "Can you count?" The claimant said, "Yes." Clearly mentally able enough for some jobs. The commentator (who knew the disabled man personally) said that the problem was that the clerk was just ticking boxes, otherwise they might have checked a little more thoroughly. The man could count - to 5. And, of course, he did not know enough to explain that.

They are supposed to be making changes in the system to remedy some of the worst foul-ups, but they are still there to reduce the bill. This means that they will be expected to take more people off benefit than they add on. The results required will be the first consideration, and the tests will have to provide those results. This is a money-saving exercise, first and foremost (which is why it was announced in the Budget), and people facing pre-determined cuts have every reason to suppose that they will be in the firing line.

db

deeplyblue

Good heavens, I really did overboard tonight didn't I?

ramsas

At the very least i think those in power must make changes to the current methods used in the assessments currently by ATOS !!!
Those who have genuine problems in carrying out work related activities should not have to worry over being passed has fit for work ,that is just plain wrong and the system needs to address this matter asap.What would the legal standpoint be should someone be passed has fit for work and then they go on to have an accident as a direct result of their condition or through meds that they are taking??i think this is a very grey area and one which will rear its head in the coming months should inadequate measures be implemented.This is a very important matter to be taken into consideration and one which they need to look at in detail in my opinion.

cyclonebri1

ramsas wrote: »

At the very least i think those in power must make changes to the current methods used in the assessments currently by ATOS !!!
Those who have genuine problems in carrying out work related activities should not have to worry over being passed has fit for work ,that is just plain wrong and the system needs to address this matter asap.What would the legal standpoint be should someone be passed has fit for work and then they go on to have an accident as a direct result of their condition or through meds that they are taking??i think this is a very grey area and one which will rear its head in the coming months should inadequate measures be implemented.This is a very important matter to be taken into consideration and one which they need to look at in detail in my opinion.

And that's obviously the one common worry that all of us affected have, not the medical, simply the less than proffesional manor in which it will probably be carried out. Even the bashers should be able to understand that ;)

de1amo

do they continue the normal reassessments between now and 2013 or are they going to put things on hold--make no sense being assessed and then reassed again after 2013--its obvious that new assessors and assesments will be roled out in 2013--atos as the only body that is currently placed to do them!!

jimbms

Trialia wrote: »

I was using the quotes because I was quoting you, actually.

As you say, if a proper system was in place then they're not to be feared. The problem here is that there is NOT a proper system in place, therefore they are, at present, to be feared. Nobody in power has said anything about ATOS being replaced or retrained for this new system, and until that happens, the medicals are very much to be feared, even by the genuine claimants.

You don't seem to realise how lucky you are to have a system that does work properly, nor that we do not!

Ok I concede we are a bit at cross terms here and until reading up about these ATOS cowboys last night I did not realise what a bunch incompitant idiots they are, I can now see your point on why people in England will fear these medicals, (Not sure about Scotland and Wales as there is no mention how they do theirs). The system you have over there does seem very stupid as it does not take into account local factors and family history. A quick question for you, does someone on DLA get a decent tax allowance if working, I believe it is £3750 here, and also employers get a grant to assist employees on DLA if needed. It does seem to work as 60% of people on DLA do have some kind of work which as you know can do hell of a lot for self esteem and dignity, it goes as far here as several financial institutions have people working from home if they suffer from a condition they cannot get out with, quite sensible really, the bank does not have to pay various office costs and only pays for the phone line and diversion and the employee gets to do full time work without facing the ordeal of travel and/or being with people and at the same time being in a safe comfy environment. It seems if the UK govt got ridy of the petty beaurocracy and obsession with paper work and instead got down to thinking about people then the economy would benifit more, at least your new govt are getting rid of a good bunch of these pen pushers.