We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
New disability test 'is a complete mess', says the man who designed it
samdd
Posts: 1,344 Forumite
Sorry if this has already been posted.. Did a search but nothing obvious was returned.
One of the architects of the new sickness benefit system has warned it would be a mistake to start introducing it nationwide from the end of this month because of serious ongoing problems with the medical test designed to assess whether claimants are genuinely sick or disabled.
"The test is badly malfunctioning. The current assessment is a complete mess," Professor Paul Gregg, an economist and welfare reform expert, said.
During the preliminary roll-out of the test, people with terminal cancer, multiple sclerosis and serious mental illnesses have been found fit to work.
Since early 2009, more than 240,000 cases contesting the result of the health tests have been accepted for tribunal hearings and, of the cases they hear, judges overturn about 40% of test findings.
Over the next three years, 1.5 million people claiming incapacity benefit will undergo a work capability assessment (WCA) to determine whether they are eligible for a replacement benefit, employment support allowance (ESA).
The new test is much tougher than the previous one and in pilots 30% fewer people have been found unfit for work and 70% fewer people have been found eligible for the full-rate, unconditional support benefit; in both cases claimants have been shifted to a lower benefit. The reform is expected to save the government £1bn over five years.
The system has been in place for new claimants since 2008, but will be expanded to retest existing claimants from the end of this month.
An independent review of the test in November last year found serious flaws in the way it was functioning and called for major improvements.
Although the government has promised to implement these recommendations before people begin to be retested, at a rate of 11,000 a week, some politicians, charity workers and academics think the roll-out is going ahead too fast.
Gregg, who helped design the new ESA, recommends a further trial before it is introduced nationally.
"In the first trial, the system did not work. We need to trial the new, proposed, reformed system to check and prove that it works and avoids the serious stress and misclassification of people that we have already seen, before we start implementing it on a large and vulnerable population," he said. "The test so far has caused a huge amount of anguish to the people who have gone through it. We need to have something that is working accurately before we apply it nationally.
"We shouldn't roll this out until we have something that is working."
Stephen Timms, the shadow employment secretary, is also anxious about the speed with which it is being implemented. "In principle, this is the right thing to do," he said. "My worry is that this exercise is being rushed. We know that there are some changes that need to be made to the WCA. There are risks with the roll-out. I think that the government is in a rush with the welfare reform."
Chris Grayling, the employment minister, acknowledged that there had been problems with the test, but said reforms were being introduced and would be in place in time. "I see this as a constant process of refinement and improvement," he said.
Source
Cameron, you hunt.
Edit: to replace foul language....
One of the architects of the new sickness benefit system has warned it would be a mistake to start introducing it nationwide from the end of this month because of serious ongoing problems with the medical test designed to assess whether claimants are genuinely sick or disabled.
"The test is badly malfunctioning. The current assessment is a complete mess," Professor Paul Gregg, an economist and welfare reform expert, said.
During the preliminary roll-out of the test, people with terminal cancer, multiple sclerosis and serious mental illnesses have been found fit to work.
Since early 2009, more than 240,000 cases contesting the result of the health tests have been accepted for tribunal hearings and, of the cases they hear, judges overturn about 40% of test findings.
Over the next three years, 1.5 million people claiming incapacity benefit will undergo a work capability assessment (WCA) to determine whether they are eligible for a replacement benefit, employment support allowance (ESA).
The new test is much tougher than the previous one and in pilots 30% fewer people have been found unfit for work and 70% fewer people have been found eligible for the full-rate, unconditional support benefit; in both cases claimants have been shifted to a lower benefit. The reform is expected to save the government £1bn over five years.
The system has been in place for new claimants since 2008, but will be expanded to retest existing claimants from the end of this month.
An independent review of the test in November last year found serious flaws in the way it was functioning and called for major improvements.
Although the government has promised to implement these recommendations before people begin to be retested, at a rate of 11,000 a week, some politicians, charity workers and academics think the roll-out is going ahead too fast.
Gregg, who helped design the new ESA, recommends a further trial before it is introduced nationally.
"In the first trial, the system did not work. We need to trial the new, proposed, reformed system to check and prove that it works and avoids the serious stress and misclassification of people that we have already seen, before we start implementing it on a large and vulnerable population," he said. "The test so far has caused a huge amount of anguish to the people who have gone through it. We need to have something that is working accurately before we apply it nationally.
"We shouldn't roll this out until we have something that is working."
Stephen Timms, the shadow employment secretary, is also anxious about the speed with which it is being implemented. "In principle, this is the right thing to do," he said. "My worry is that this exercise is being rushed. We know that there are some changes that need to be made to the WCA. There are risks with the roll-out. I think that the government is in a rush with the welfare reform."
Chris Grayling, the employment minister, acknowledged that there had been problems with the test, but said reforms were being introduced and would be in place in time. "I see this as a constant process of refinement and improvement," he said.
Source
Cameron, you hunt.
Edit: to replace foul language....
0
Comments
-
Why is it David Cameron's fault? Was he PM when this was introduced?0
-
The system has been in place for new claimants since 2008, but will be expanded to retest existing claimants from the end of this month.
And therefore it is Cameron's fault? Do you live in a time warp?0 -
krisskross wrote: »Why is it David Cameron's fault? Was he PM when this was introduced?
Of course it is camerons fault, he carried on with labours work, tried to steal credit for it, then made the already diabolicially flawed and unfair/unethical system worse....[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
The system has been in place for new claimants since 2008, but will be expanded to retest existing claimants from the end of this month.
And therefore it is Cameron's fault? Do you live in a time warp?
The system that was in place in 2008 is not the system that is being rolled out is it? The new system has new descriptors, all passed under the condems.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
As I posted in another forum
What happens if DWP state you are OK to work. You get a job, have a serious accident and badly injure yourself or worse still someone else.
The DWP could be considered responsible and I would even suggest legal action should be taken against the assesor.The DWP = Legally kicking the Disabled when they are down.0 -
Invalidation wrote: »As I posted in another forum
What happens if DWP state you are OK to work. You get a job, have a serious accident and badly injure yourself or worse still someone else.
The DWP could be considered responsible and I would even suggest legal action should be taken against the assesor.
Not wishing that someone is injured or anything but if this does happen I hope someone does make a test case of it and wins.0 -
At least its getting some acknowlagement in the media alot of people on this forum for a long time have been saying there is noting wrong with the system if your genuine you will be fine etc...load of rubbish its gone to far now and its only now just started to get taken the slightest bit seriously.0
-
Invalidation wrote: »As I posted in another forum
What happens if DWP state you are OK to work. You get a job, have a serious accident and badly injure yourself or worse still someone else.
The DWP could be considered responsible and I would even suggest legal action should be taken against the assesor.
It would certainly be an interesting case, however I think there would be difficulty establishing a duty of care, remoteness and causation. Unfortunately I would say that the legal resources required to pursue such a case would be beyond most individuals.Gone ... or have I?0 -
I cant see there would be any problem establishing a duty of care. If someone has been off work for many years with a disabling condition, it would have been a Doctor or Consultant who would have made that decision. If a decision by a non medically qualified person to over rulle that decision, resulted in an accident, that decision maker would have been directly responsible.It would certainly be an interesting case, however I think there would be difficulty establishing a duty of care, remoteness and causation. Unfortunately I would say that the legal resources required to pursue such a case would be beyond most individuals.
I had this discussion with my Doctor about 6 years ago when I suggested I would try and get back to work. He forbade it and stated if I went back to work contrary to his decision and caused an accident causing harm or financial loss to anyone they could sue me for negligence.
I see little difference if someone else makes that decision that I am OK to work and it results in an accident which would not have happened if I had not been made to work. That decision maker would be directly responsible.
I doubt ATOS or DWP have even vaguely considered this scenario or if they have they arent saying. I do know that if I am sent back to work and I injure myself doing something I would not normally do I most certainly would take a criminal prosecution out against whatever fool decided to make that decision.The DWP = Legally kicking the Disabled when they are down.0 -
Invalidation wrote: »I cant see there would be any problem establishing a duty of care. If someone has been off work for many years with a disabling condition, it would have been a Doctor or Consultant who would have made that decision. If a decision by a non medically qualified person to over rulle that decision, resulted in an accident, that decision maker would have been directly responsible.
I had this discussion with my Doctor about 6 years ago when I suggested I would try and get back to work. He forbade it and stated if I went back to work contrary to his decision and caused an accident causing harm or financial loss to anyone they could sue me for negligence.
I see little difference if someone else makes that decision that I am OK to work and it results in an accident which would not have happened if I had not been made to work. That decision maker would be directly responsible.
I doubt ATOS or DWP have even vaguely considered this scenario or if they have they arent saying. I do know that if I am sent back to work and I injure myself doing something I would not normally do I most certainly would take a criminal prosecution out against whatever fool decided to make that decision.
The argument would be that you should not have put yourself in the position for causing harm to yourself/ others. So, if for instance you were unsteady on your feet, you should not be working in a role where this could cause danger. Furthermore there is the argument that adaptations should have been made to ensure that you were safe in your role, and that you should not have put yourself in that position until the adaptations were made. Whilst the SoS may state that you are fit for work, they are not obliging you to take any particular position.
Ultimately, responsibility for health and safety in the workplace remains with the individual. Even if the DWP were found liable, contributory negligence would come into play and cancel out any award.Gone ... or have I?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards