Using a Private GP Service

FleurDuLys

I don't know for sure, I'm just speculating We all know that ATOS seem to do all they can to prevent people from getting ESA and appear to treat most applicants with a great deal of suspicion. The DLA people sound similar. I personally wouldn't want to give them any excuses to be extra suspicious.

ATOS do sometimes write to GPs to ask for more info taken from your medical notes (they did in my case), so I'm guessing that if you went through a private GP then that private GP would have to contact your NHS GP anyway in order to get hold of them, and if ATOS became aware that this was happening it might cause problems. This is why I think that being explicit about what you're doing is probably a good plan! Don't give them an excuse to view you as someone who is potentially trying to hide something.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I don't see how having a private GP should be seen as unscrupulous by ATOS or anyone else.

For example if you need a heart operation, you need a heart operation. So if you had it done privately does that mean you actually don't need the operation?

FleurDuLys

I'm just speculating that it could be seen as a bit suspicious if you see a private GP as a one-off, who doesn't know you, to write a report based on what you tell them on the day they meet you. I mean, whilst you know you're perfectly honest, what's to stop someone just going along and making out they're really disabled when they're not? ATOS, DLA etc seem to treat claimants with a lot of suspicion anyway, so I can see how they might want to get hold of your previous medical notes to confirm what has been said - and this would require them to go through your NHS GP, as your private GP wouldn't have them. So that might cause delays and problems and be extra unwanted hassle and stress, which we can all do without.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, if I were going to get a private GP to write a report for the sake of expediency, I'd be careful to make it clear to ATOS/DLA/etc that this is what I have done, so they wouldn't have any cause to view me with extra suspicion.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

The DLA GP Factual report asks a GP to produce a report on the DWP's own proforma based on the care and mobility needs in relation to the conditions that you put down.

So if you see a GP privately about say M.E. and your claim for DLA is based on M.E. then that should be all the medical history the DWP require. So the private GP should hold the information needed.

FleurDuLys

Of course, I can't see it being a problem if your private GP is someone you have seen regularly and they can demonstrate that your problems have been happening over a period of time I would just be worried about seeing someone as a one-off in order to get a report written based purely on what you tell them on the day. As I said, ATOS do quite often require extra information so they'll ask GPs for copies of medical notes, and they also sometimes write to consultants. It might just get problematic if the private GP doesn't have access to these, and they don't know your case.

I got ESA without any problems the first time I applied, but they did ask my GP and consultants for extra info rather than taking my application form at face value, which is fair enough.

No_Future

Of course the private doctor will give you what you want, you're paying for it. Lol!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

No_Future wrote: »

Of course the private doctor will give you what you want, you're paying for it. Lol!

Of course ATOS will give the DWP what they want. They are paying for it!

Isn't it comical now the boot is on the other foot and a level playing field is afoot

Richie-from-the-Boro

ATOS is essentially a vicious [ do anything for money ] and arbitrarily nasty private sector company recruited to act as a perfect foil to defend the taxpayer against people who fit the profile of most of the money grabbing individuals in this group.

The O/P [ #1 ] asked for something that society's rules said she was not entitled to, so ' A Flock Of Sheep ' gerrymandered the system to circumnavigate the ' evidence ' rules. The private [ and equally do anything for money ] doctor gave the O/P a favourable .. .. what s/he paid for report, of course they would .. .. the O/P knew that .. .. that was the whole purpose of paying the blood money to go private.

ATOS, and for that matter any other examining authority will make a judgement on the evidence presented. But the file on the claim still exists and will, in chronological order have the £48.75 report added. The £48.75 paid~for~alternative~interpretation should, indeed must be taken into the mix when consideration is given to the new claim.

So when examined the date order will show

- claim
- refused under this criteria because a personal GP with full history would not give support
- re-claim
- and resubmitted under this different paid~for interpretation by a non-personal GP with no personal history who gives support

Hmmmm, lets see, the only reason for this is the O/P's condition has suffered a massive and terrible deterioration in the very short last several weeks we must help by sending s/he back to ATOS but in compassion we won't charge £48.75 for the re-examination.

What will happen ?. The BB will probably be granted because it's an untrained junior level local authority employee dealing with the claim. Hopefully the new medical opinion will be refereed back to the O/P's personal GP to give a second reconsideration of the legal document he signed.

Offended by my comment """ money grabbing individuals in this group """ ?. Dont be 99% of the responders agreed it was ok to cheat by bending the rules to get~what~you~want

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

ATOS is essentially a vicious [ do anything for money ] and arbitrarily nasty private sector company recruited to act as a perfect foil to defend the taxpayer against people who fit the profile of most of the money grabbing individuals in this group.

The O/P [ #1 ] asked for something that society's rules said she was not entitled to, so ' A Flock Of Sheep ' gerrymandered the system to circumnavigate the ' evidence ' rules. The private [ and equally do anything for money ] doctor gave the O/P a favourable .. .. what s/he paid for report, of course they would .. .. the O/P knew that .. .. that was the whole purpose of paying the blood money to go private.

ATOS, and for that matter any other examining authority will make a judgement on the evidence presented. But the file on the claim still exists and will, in chronological order have the £48.75 report added. The £48.75 paid~for~alternative~interpretation should, indeed must be taken into the mix when consideration is given to the new claim.

So when examined the date order will show

- claim
- refused under this criteria because a personal GP with full history would not give support
- re-claim
- and resubmitted under this different paid~for interpretation by a non-personal GP with no personal history who gives support

Hmmmm, lets see, the only reason for this is the O/P's condition has suffered a massive and terrible deterioration in the very short last several weeks we must help by sending s/he back to ATOS but in compassion we won't charge £48.75 for the re-examination.

What will happen ?. The BB will probably be granted because it's an untrained junior level local authority employee dealing with the claim. Hopefully the new medical opinion will be refereed back to the O/P's personal GP to give a second reconsideration of the legal document he signed.

Offended by my comment """ money grabbing individuals in this group """ ?. Dont be 99% of the responders agreed it was ok to cheat by bending the rules to get~what~you~want

I found your remark hard to follow to be honest. But I will let you know if my friend's Blue Badge Application is successful this time by using a Private GP!

Brassedoff

I agree with GlasweJen and Tanith, I think what your friend has done is wrong. A bit like a kid being told no by one parent and then asking the other without the first party knowing hoping to get the answer you want. I hope this back door attempt fails and so does any claim for DLA.

Your GP and Consultant know your condition. If they feel you are not in their experienced and in depth knowledge about the condition bad enough, then tough! It gets every other genuine claimant a bad name.

Boro, I don't think 99% agreed it was OK to swindle the system. Their attempt is wrong and the paid for report that would have only been submitted if it said the "right" thing should be taken and dismissed. Any paid for report or research is always tainted. After all, "he who pays the piper, calls the tune". The majority of us have all or are tax payers!

I sincerely hope the OP's attempt fails and that of anyone else who tries to follow suit.