ESA Medical - here we go again!

dmg24

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

Given that the stated aim is to reduce welfare by £7bn you can be damn sure that there is a target for reducing the claims of former IB claimants. You may not have the exact number in £.s.d but there will be one - and there will be ATOS benefit reduction targets linked to it.

I'm amazed at some of you guys - naive and trusting isn't in it!!!

I tend to deal with facts, and you have presented none.

Hastobe_Katt

dmg24 wrote: »

I tend to deal with facts, and you have presented none.

As I said naive - very naive.

dmg24

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

As I said naive - very naive.

Feel free to provide facts to back up your viewpoint. There is nothing naive in refraining from giving an opinion to something that we do not know enough about. Indeed, I would call it intelligent.

healy

The point that the ATOS haters seem to be missing is that they do not need to fail people when they should pass as rightly or wrongly the ESA assessment has been designed to fail many more people than than the IB assessment. For example the majority claiming on mental health grounds, M.E. etc etc will fail the new assessment as that is the whole idea of changing it.

dmg24

healy wrote: »

The point that the ATOS haters seem to be missing is that they do not need to fail people when they should pass as rightly or wrongly the ESA assessment has been designed to fail many more people than than the IB assessment. For example the majority claiming on mental health grounds, M.E. etc etc will fail the new assessment as that is the whole idea of changing it.

Absolutely, whether we agree or not with the ESA changes, the fact is that it is not ATOS that have made them.

WhiteHorse

healy wrote: »

The point that the ATOS haters seem to be missing is that they do not need to fail people ...

Ah ... but how likely is it that their contract will be renewed if they pass too many?

... when they should pass as rightly or wrongly the ESA assessment has been designed to fail many more people than than the IB assessment. For example the majority claiming on mental health grounds, M.E. etc etc will fail the new assessment as that is the whole idea of changing it.

Quite.

WhiteHorse

dmg24 wrote: »

Absolutely, whether we agree or not with the ESA changes, the fact is that it is not ATOS that have made them.

This is true. Atos the corporate entity is only taking advantage of an opportunity offered by a government to whom the concept of morality is an unknown.

That said ... the excuse 'I vos only obeyink orders' doesn't cut much ice these days. Atos staff also have a moral obligation - they can't destroy people and then claim that it's somehow not their fault.

We should expose Atos for what they are, but yes, we should not lose sight of the fact that yet again, the greater fault lies with greasy, self-serving politicians.

Or possibly the gullible fools who elected them and keep them there ...

apf52

There are a lot of angry posts here (and no doubt with good reason) but many are not related to the original question. As I pointed out in the previous post, there are a lot of Assessments so even a small percentage of problems will result in a lot of angry people. Also, with so many people to review the process of calling people for a medical must be a mechanistic, tick a box process. There is not enough time to look in detail at every case to decide if a medical is required. If they undertake a medical then that's the time they will consider the person's condition in detail. What the claimant needs is to go into the medical knowing what to expect and understanding what the questions really mean. (In response to someone's statement about being able to pick up a pound coin from the floor by the way, yes - it's still in the medical and, as the person said, if you cannot do it 'reliably, repeatedly and the majority of the time' the proper and honest answer is 'no'. If asked why not, then is the time to explain if you sometimes feel giddy if you bend over in that manner or that you have to be able to hold on to something in order to keep your balance or whatever. If you are asked to try to do it while they watch you are always allowed to say NO if you feel such an activity would not be safe for you. This is the rule that applies to all activities and questions, not just to picking something up from the floor). If you look at the web reference I gave in the last post you will be able to find the question areas about which they will ask and you can consider the correct answers in advance rather than having to fire from the hip on the day.
As for having to attend the medical, there is little point in trying to change the requirement to attend unless you have specific medical reasons why you cannot attend and hence need a home visit. To be fair to Atos - and I'm not inclined to do that very often - someone who has overstated their problems on a form will object to attending as much as someone who is genuinely unwell and they can't tell the difference until they see you. There's little to be done about this except to be philosophical, shrug your shoulders and save the complaints for later.

On the matter of Atos and their approach to their responsibilities, the independent review of ESA carried out by Professor Harrington can be found by following the link to dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/employment-and-support/wca-independent-review/. There you can see the details of what he found and what changes he recommended. I have no reason to doubt Professor Harrington's integrity, independence or motives and he clearly had acces to papers and people that we do not. It makes an interesting read.
Perhaps a separate facility somewhere here to record the facts of people's experience and the things they have found out would be most useful. There is another review of ESA required next year and such a body of evidence can be submitted to the review process.

-7-

apf52 wrote: »

There are a lot of angry posts here (and no doubt with good reason) but many are not related to the original question. As I pointed out in the previous post, there are a lot of Assessments so even a small percentage of problems will result in a lot of angry people. Also, with so many people to review the process of calling people for a medical must be a mechanistic, tick a box process. There is not enough time to look in detail at every case to decide if a medical is required. If they undertake a medical then that's the time they will consider the person's condition in detail. What the claimant needs is to go into the medical knowing what to expect and understanding what the questions really mean. (In response to someone's statement about being able to pick up a pound coin from the floor by the way, yes - it's still in the medical and, as the person said, if you cannot do it 'reliably, repeatedly and the majority of the time' the proper and honest answer is 'no'. If asked why not, then is the time to explain if you sometimes feel giddy if you bend over in that manner or that you have to be able to hold on to something in order to keep your balance or whatever. If you are asked to try to do it while they watch you are always allowed to say NO if you feel such an activity would not be safe for you. This is the rule that applies to all activities and questions, not just to picking something up from the floor). If you look at the web reference I gave in the last post you will be able to find the question areas about which they will ask and you can consider the correct answers in advance rather than having to fire from the hip on the day.
As for having to attend the medical, there is little point in trying to change the requirement to attend unless you have specific medical reasons why you cannot attend and hence need a home visit. To be fair to Atos - and I'm not inclined to do that very often - someone who has overstated their problems on a form will object to attending as much as someone who is genuinely unwell and they can't tell the difference until they see you. There's little to be done about this except to be philosophical, shrug your shoulders and save the complaints for later.

On the matter of Atos and their approach to their responsibilities, the independent review of ESA carried out by Professor Harrington can be found by following the link to dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/employment-and-support/wca-independent-review/. There you can see the details of what he found and what changes he recommended. I have no reason to doubt Professor Harrington's integrity, independence or motives and he clearly had acces to papers and people that we do not. It makes an interesting read.
Perhaps a separate facility somewhere here to record the facts of people's experience and the things they have found out would be most useful. There is another review of ESA required next year and such a body of evidence can be submitted to the review process.

Please continue to post if you think you know anything more thats relevant. I especially liked the very long post on page one and I did read the whole post. I've saved it into notepad on my computer for future reference. :T

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

DWP do not pay ATOS for failing people.

The DWP pay ATOS..

What ATOS does with the money, is by the DWP's own admission unkown.

So ATOS could be paying bonuses.