MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

bestpud

Dunroamin wrote: »

When I took early retirement on health grounds I was treated by my GP and properly assessed by a psychiatrist for depression. Fortunately, the combination of anti depressants and a change of situation "cured" me but, if I'd wanted or needed to claim benefits for this condition, it would have been very little effort to turn up at the GP's surgery every 3 months (unwashed and unmade up if I'd followed some websites' advice;)), tell him I didn't feel any better, pick up my prescription and leave.

That's what most genuine sufferers from depression do anyway, unless they're at the very extreme edge of clinical depression.

Many don't even do that!

bestpud

schrodie wrote: »

Ring the DWP they came up with the figure. It's a shame that right wing rags like the daily mail don't do that as well when they print their anti-disabled propaganda for the purposes of rousing the rabble!

It's like trying to accurately record any crime - impossible!

The right wing rags have as much chance as the DWP of getting it correct!

Mojisola

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'd wanted or needed to claim benefits for this condition, it would have been very little effort to turn up at the GP's surgery every 3 months (unwashed and unmade up if I'd followed some websites' advice;)), tell him I didn't feel any better, pick up my prescription and leave.

I know someone who did this - not to collect benefits but to get sick pay from a company who cheated him out of a massive bonus.

He researched depression and stress, acted it out in front of his GP and got signed off on full pay. He travelled a lot and enjoyed the best part of a year on holiday, coming back for his regular doctor's appointments and renewed sick notes.

bestpud

Just had a read of the review made by the DWP.

0.5% of the cases reviewed were fraudulent.

7.8% involved a change in circumstances that meant the award was wrong but it wasn't clear they had intent!

So over 8% were actually being paid more than they should have been for their disability - funny none of the posts I've seen around the internet have mentioned that!

And, of course, those able to fraudulently claim in the first place will carry on their charade when being reviewed!

:think:

bigboybrother

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

strong pain medication etc as evidence. .

That proves nothing. All that proves is that the GP has been convinced by the patient that they are in a lot more pain than they actually are and have been prescribed extremely powerful pain killing medication.

Whether that patient actually takes those drugs is another matter.

I am aware of one claimant that has a 'shed' yes his shed, full of unused medication including Morphine MST by the hundreds and Oramorph by the litres.

He keeps up the pretence every month of applying for these drugs on his repeat prescription but never has the intention of taking them. He builds up a 'history' with the GP.

His only problem is how to get rid of these unused drugs without anyone finding out!

clemmatis

bestpud wrote: »

Must be right then because people would be sure to let them know if they were claiming fraudulently! :rotfl:

I said they reviewed cases. They didn't take them at face value. They've given details -- but you only want to be told fraud is high, so you won't bother. Well, whatever.

bigboybrother

dktreesea wrote: »

I think what we are witnessing though, is a shift in attitude to "disability". I'm not even sure, in our brave new world of letting benefit recipients sink or swim, that what you had would be classified as being eligible for a disability payment, because the attitude might be "yes, you are sick, we recognise that, but you will recover in due time. That "just" an illness that one recovers from, like flu/pneumonia/meningitis/measles etc." At what point will one who is attempting to recover from any illness be adjudged disabled due to complications, or even just the length of time it takes to recover?

As to being depressed, yes, depression is debilitating, no doubt about it. But the attitude nowadays from the government, if ATOS actions are any indication is "so what, you're depressed. Millions of people work through their bouts of depression every day. You can do the same. Why should the taxpayer pay just because you suffer a debilitating condition?"

That's really the crux of it, isn't it. This government is of the opinion that the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay extra benefits just because the person claiming has some sort of impairment.

http://janeyoung.me.uk/2012/12/14/well-over-100000-to-lose-motability-vehicles-under-draconian-new-rules/
This article discusses the change to the disability assessment rules from being unable to walk 50 metres down to 20 metres. Yet the government claims, despite this, existing beneficiaries will get to keep their cars? Hah! So the government keeps insisting, but they also add "unless their circumstances change". My translation of that is, "unless the government move the goalposts and this time you don't make it across the line".

How far are we away from: "If you can walk, however much pain this results in, however slowly you walk, however many rests you need to take in between, whatever aids you need, like walking sticks or a walker, you are not disabled for the purposes of qualifying for extra benefits because you can still get around."

But it is a fact that many seriously disabled people, sometimes in extreme pain do manage to hold down a job.

As an example why should A who has no legs but wears false ones that cause pain at sometime of the day claim to be disabled and argue the toss that they should have as many forms of disability benefit as they can get, yet B with the same condition and same limitations manage to carve a out a professional career for themselves?

The age old argument that the same disabilities affect different people in different ways is always thrown out. What you mean to say is that there are those that rise to the challenge of a disability and those that wish to take advantage of their disability to avoid having to work and get paid for staying at home.

That example comes from a very good friend that was born with no legs and stumps for arms yet managed, despite all of the obstacles put in his way, to become a Chartered Accountant and now works and lives in L.A.

clemmatis

bestpud wrote: »

Just had a read of the review made by the DWP.

0.5% of the cases reviewed were fraudulent.

7.8% involved a change in circumstances that meant the award was wrong but it wasn't clear they had intent!

So over 8% were actually being paid more than they should have been for their disability - funny none of the posts I've seen around the internet have mentioned that!

And, of course, those able to fraudulently claim in the first place will carry on their charade when being reviewed!

:think:

So now, you accept the DWP figures? Funny, that.

But when I looked, I found a figure -- DWP, same report -- of 2.1% total overpayment, caused by fraud plus DWP error plus claimant error including failure to report change, and 0.8% underpayment.

Of course that doesn't necessarily contradict what you say.

bigboybrother

bestpud wrote: »

I keep seeing this 0.5 % fraud rate quoted and nobody yet has been able to explain to me how this can be measured with any accuracy!

Perhaps you can?

It isn't accurate and is nothing more than pure guesswork by the government.

They may have the figure right for those that are out and out benefit cheaters but the figure will be considerably higher if you were to include those that exaggerate a condition or their needs as well as those that fail to report an improvement in their abilities.

Nobody knows for sure what the true figure is for the genuine cases that play it completely by the rules or indeed those that don't.

clemmatis

bigboybrother wrote: »

That proves nothing. All that proves is that the GP has been convinced by the patient that they are in a lot more pain than they actually are and have been prescribed extremely powerful pain killing medication.

Whether that patient actually takes those drugs is another matter.

I am aware of one claimant that has a 'shed' yes his shed, full of unused medication including Morphine MST by the hundreds and Oramorph by the litres.

He keeps up the pretence every month of applying for these drugs on his repeat prescription but never has the intention of taking them. He builds up a 'history' with the GP.

His only problem is how to get rid of these unused drugs without anyone finding out!

Hello, Andy.