PIP, and the shrinking of motability/HRM.

uponahill

rogerblack wrote: »

It's not really fairer.
The criteria are broadly similar, though it's explicitly points-based, which DLA was not.

I question if 40% of people not getting high-rate care, with high-rate mobility awards, really do not have severe mobility issues.

The above numbers are based on the above linked modelling of 900 cases, and the governments extrapolation of the changes.
Simply, there are 10K more people in the highest group for mobility/care of PIP than DLA. To clarify - this does not mean that everyone with HRC/HRM will get the highest awards under PIP, some may of course move down and lose entitlement, and some with lower DLA awards will move up.

The low-rate care going away will affect a _lot_ of people.

I have been saying to friends for quite some time now that the government's hope for a 20% saving will be far outstripped. Based on what I know, and as has been pointed out, a very high proportion of those on HRM will lose out.
Add to that that the lower rate of care is going, I estimate that the savings will amount to approx 50% or more of the current amount spent on DLA!
The government must know this but to be honest I don't blame them for under estimating the savings figure. If they were truly honest, there would have been a much bigger outcry than there has been from the disability lobby.

I know a lot has been said already on this site about how to use the wording of the PIP regs against the DWP, but I cannot see that those types of arguments will hold water.

Personally I am all for this change to PIP, at least those that truly deserve the higher rate of mobility will be prorected. The rest - the so called can't walk, won't walk brigade, yet many seem to manage an active life, will have to fend for themselves in future!

Yes I too will lose my HRM, the MRC should be safe, as there is no way on this earth I could convince anybody that I am unable to wheel a wheelchair. I would be surprised if many can genuinely say they can't either, but no doubt they will try to say otherwise.

I have a Motability car which will go back, and I will have to buy my own again. What I can say is that it was nice having it at the time but there does come a time when things have to change.
We have all had a good innings with DLA - since 1992 with nothing really changing, but things are different now 20 years on and it is time to bring the benefit system up to date.

There is of course the passport to extra benefits with WTC (UC) for those who are receiving DLA. I can forsee that this too will change to remove the extra money that WTC gives as welll as the reduced hours.

uponahill

LadyMorticia wrote: »

So, does that mean they're going to be doing away with the "metre test" i.e. not being able to walk so many metres without discomfort and severe pain?

The mobilisation task will still cover the walking test, but you will ALSO have to show good medical reason why you could not wheel a wheelchair AS WELL!

The use of a wheelchair will be taken as being able to mobilise, even if you can't put one foot in front of another when trying to walk.

You would have to show that you have upper body problems (no arms, joints that fall apart etc) exist in order to gain HRM with PIP.

No doubt the arthritis 'sufferers' will claim that their wrists fingers and arms are now causing problems!!

LadyMorticia

rogerblack wrote: »

No!
See below.



My understanding of the descriptors.

If you have no mental problems, to get enhanced mobility you need to be unable to walk 50m without using a wheelchair.
If you have a stick, and can only walk 20m, for example.

I can find no references directly to pain in the regulations, which is concerning. I need to reread.


The key is the descriptor says 'without using a wheelchair' - there are no points scored specifically for using a wheelchair.

To get the enhanced mobility component, you need 12 points.

The bare descriptors are in principle going to be considerably moderated for some people if "their impairment affects their ability to perform a task on more than 50% of days".

If this proposed definition of when a descriptor applies, then it would make people whos condition varies throughout the day a lot more likely to qualify.

For example - I currently have a large number of bad days a week, perhaps up to over 50%, during which at some point in the day, I am unable to move 50m, without using a wheelchair propelled by someone else, or an electric wheelchair.

I can find no specific guidance that the claimant must in fact have a wheelchair, or use it.

The proposed descriptors are confused in many aspects.

I believe the intent is to reuse the 'virtual wheelchair' from the ESA tests, as this is the only way the descriptors make sense.

Otherwise someone who can walk with a stick 20m, say, gets no points.
If a virtual wheelchair is employed, they may get either 12 or 15 - depending on if they could in principle use a manual chair.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-second-draft-assessment-regulations.pdf page 15

As I understand the regulations - if most days you have times when you can't move 50m, possibly using aids, without using a wheelchair, you get 12 points.
If you can move only 50m unaided, and aids don't help you, you get 8 points.
(If you can move 51m with a stick, you get 4)

If you get 8 points, you then need to pick up 4 points from the other half of the mobility - the mental side.

'needs prompting for all journeys to avoid overwhelming distress' = 4...

Okay. Thank you. It's all a bit confusing. I get LRM and HRC at the moment as M.E is so severe at the moment that I have to walk with my stick indoors, even though it causes immense pain (and some days I'm bedbound) but I have to use a wheelchair when I'm out because I cannot walk more than 10-20 metres outdoors, even with my stick as it is too exhausting and my legs won't work.
My husband has to wheel me because the M.E means that I can't self-propel because of chronic exhaustion and severe pain so I don't know where I'd stand? =/ My GP and psych said to ask for a re-assessment of my DLA because my mobility has worsened drastically but my care needs are still the same so I'm worried they could take the whole award away, even though my care needs haven't changed at all.

uponahill wrote: »

The mobilisation task will still cover the walking test, but you will ALSO have to show good medical reason why you could not wheel a wheelchair AS WELL!

The use of a wheelchair will be taken as being able to mobilise, even if you can't put one foot in front of another when trying to walk.

You would have to show that you have upper body problems (no arms, joints that fall apart etc) exist in order to gain HRM with PIP.

No doubt the arthritis 'sufferers' will claim that their wrists fingers and arms are now causing problems!!

What about those with M.E who have their upper body but cannot propel a wheelchair because of chronic exhaustion? Where will we stand?
I cannot use an electric wheelchair because I cannot concentrate for long enough and have very bad spatial awareness!

=/

rogerblack

uponahill wrote: »

The mobilisation task will still cover the walking test, but you will ALSO have to show good medical reason why you could not wheel a wheelchair AS WELL!

The use of a wheelchair will be taken as being able to mobilise, even if you can't put one foot in front of another when trying to walk.

You would have to show that you have upper body problems (no arms, joints that fall apart etc) exist in order to gain HRM with PIP.

No doubt the arthritis 'sufferers' will claim that their wrists fingers and arms are now causing problems!!

This is not, as I understand it, the case.
You seem to be confusing two things - last years changes to ESA where wheelchair users are considered as able (if they can climb 2 steps), and the PIP criteria - they are not the same.

The explanatory note to the changes specifically says wheelchair users are recognised to have extra costs, and this is why they are seperated out.

rogerblack

LadyMorticia wrote: »

(and some days I'm bedbound) but I have to use a wheelchair when I'm out because I cannot walk more than 10-20 metres outdoors, even with my stick as it is too exhausting and my legs won't work.

As there seems to be some confusion, I'll expand, with quotes.

My understanding of the proposed regulations is that you would qualify for enhanced mobility.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-second-draft-assessment-criteria-note.pdf - Specifically, the middle of page 37 'The descriptors continue to differentiate between the use of aids such as walking sticks and crutches; self-propelled manual wheelchairs; and wheelchairs propelled by others or a motorised device. This ensures that the extra costs associated with some mobility aids are reflected.'
The criteria - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-second-draft-assessment-regulations.pdf

The below are all read in series - if you match one of the descriptors, you cannot match a higher one.

a. Can move at least 200 metres either –
(i) unaided; or
(ii) using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device.
0
If you can get to 200m, without using a wheelchair, perhaps using aids - stick, or whatever - you get 0 points.

b. Can move at least 50 metres but not more than 200 metres either –
(i) unaided; or
(ii) using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device.
4

Similarly to the last descriptor - but if you can make 50m, but can't do 200m.

c. Can move up to 50 metres unaided but no further.
8
If you can't manage 51m, without aids.

d. Cannot move up to 50 metres without using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device.
10

This applies if you cannot move 50m, unaided
e. Cannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by the claimant.
12
If you can't get to 50m, while using aids - sticks, frames, whatever, but need a wheelchair to get to 50m, this applies.

f. Cannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by another person or a motorised device.
15
And if you can't self-propel at all, you get 15 points.

There is an additional descriptor that I missed off, that gives 15 points if you can't move at all.

These are somewhat poorly drafted.
In addition to being confusing, there are illogicalities.
For example.
If aids don't help you, and you can walk 49m, you get 10 points.
If you can walk 50m, you get 8 points.
If you can walk 51m, you get 4.

This is clearly pretty ludicrous.

moose1982

I've thought the following two conflicted:

rogerblack wrote: »

a. Can move at least 200 metres either –
(i) unaided; or
(ii) using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device.
0
If you can get to 200m, without using a wheelchair, perhaps using aids - stick, or whatever - you get 0 points.

d. Cannot move up to 50 metres without using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device.
10

This applies if you cannot move 50m, unaided

For example, take me, I only use crutches and cannot walk unaided.

a - I can get to 200m with my crutches, but will take me a fair while. But I can score on this one.

d - I cannot move 50 metres without my crutches, so I'd score here as well.

Unless I've missed something obvious (likely!), I score on two sections of the same part. It doesn't seem perfectly thought out to me.

(Thanks for giving the details in English rogerblack :T)

Anubis_2

moose1982 wrote: »

I've thought the following two conflicted:



For example, take me, I only use crutches and cannot walk unaided.

a - I can get to 200m with my crutches, but will take me a fair while. But I can score on this one.

d - I cannot move 50 metres without my crutches, so I'd score here as well.

Unless I've missed something obvious (likely!), I score on two sections of the same part. It doesn't seem perfectly thought out to me.

(Thanks for giving the details in English rogerblack :T)

You would only score on one, since you can walk 200 meters with crutches, therefore, 0 points.

If you can get to 200m, without using a wheelchair, perhaps using aids - stick, or whatever - you get 0 points.

This means walking 200 meters without a wheelchair but INSTEAD with aids = 0 points as you can do it.

Denny_Crane

Under the draft criteria (published Nov 2011, pages 61-62), for the higher scoring descriptors under Activity 11, Moving Around, the descriptors are as follows:

Activity 11 – (higher scoring descriptors only)
C Can move up to 50 metres unaided but no further. For example: identifies individuals who can move up to 50 metres unaided but then require a wheelchair for anything further. 8 POINTS

D Cannot move up to 50 metres without using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device. For example: identifies individuals who can use an aid or appliance to move up to 50 metres but then require a wheelchair for anything further.10 POINTS

E Cannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by the individual.12FCannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by another person or a motorised device. 15 POINTS

G Cannot either –i. move around at all; or ii. transfer unaided from one seated position to another adjacent seated position. 15 POINTS

The document published on 16 January proposes scoring thresholds for the different PIP mobility rates as follows (page 5):
Mobility component
Standard rate: 8 points
Enhanced rate: 12 points
(from activities 10-11. Note: Activity 10 is not relevant to people with physical conditions/impairments)

zzzLazyDaisy

What happens if you walk with a stick, are taking morphine for the pain and can cover 50 meters with difficulty and discomfort, but you are unable to use a self-propelled wheelchair owing to the possibility of further damage to neck and back (on medical advice). So when necessary, you just have to rest and then push on, even though it means that the next few days are likely to be spent in bed with pay back?

I am probably missing something, but I can't see how that scenario is covered under the new criteria?

moose1982

Anubis wrote: »

You would only score on one, since you can walk 200 meters with crutches, therefore, 0 points.



This means walking 200 meters without a wheelchair but INSTEAD with aids = 0 points as you can do it.

Thank you

I had that feeling it would be the case, but it did seem a little odd at a quick read how someone can come under two different sections.