Ask Atos Healthcare disability assessment questions

sicknotethefirst

JS477 wrote: »

As you say "The remit of the thread is questions about the Work Capability Assessment process" (not that you've answered any of them properly) so given that Atos "doctors" and "HCP" are involved in the WCA process how many "doctors" and "HCPs" have been reported to the GMC or Regulatory Bodies for carrying out sub-standard WCAs?

I have asked several questions very politely and also within the remit but I still haven';t had any answer. I would say this so called Rep only comes on here because Atos can't find him a proper job!!!!

JS477

sicknotethefirst wrote: »

I have asked several questions very politely and also within the remit but I still haven';t had any answer. I would say this so called Rep only comes on here because Atos can't find him a proper job!!!!

Either that or he's waiting for Fridge3 to come back on to carry on trolling!!

It's shocking that MSE are giving this company any kind of platform given the manner in which they have been exposed by MPs as treating sick and disabled people in inhumane ways!

Richie-from-the-Boro

Atos_Healthcare_company_representative wrote: »

Hi Richie-from-the-Boro

Personal Independence Payment processes are outside of the remit of this thread, but both of your questions would need to be directed to the DWP rather than Atos Healthcare

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your diligence, your attention to 'filter reading' threads best described as a cumbrous cacophony of discordant words and comma's.

JS477

Atos_Healthcare_company_representative wrote: »

Hi Richie-from-the-Boro

Personal Independence Payment processes are outside of the remit of this thread, but both of your questions would need to be directed to the DWP rather than Atos Healthcare

Why? For some unfathomable reason Atos have been given the job of throwing people off DLA and sticking to DWP given PIP targets!

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Dear mr/mrs Atos rep

Can/do ATOS send people for ESA assessments without the customer filling in an ESA50?

Olive_Oyl

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv wrote: »

Dear mr/mrs Atos rep

Can/do ATOS send people for ESA assessments without the customer filling in an ESA50?

In my case YES . See post 1028 .

Fridge3

DrJones35 wrote: »

In July 2012 Official figures show that 38 per cent of appeals against decisions not to award Esa are overturned in the claimant's favour, I believe this has now gone up to 40% as of this year.

Aside from the 40% figure you've quoted being incorrect, quoting appeals only figure doesn't give context to the millions of decisions not appealed.

Statistical release for January 2013 show that of the 2,415,400 WCA's undertaken 108,400 (4.5%) had initial decision overturned.

If this 4.5% it's quite typical for new, unrelated evidence to be introduced as is evident from the ministry of justices' own video, effectively making it a new claim.

DrJones35

You do realise that statistical release is for NEW CLAIMS only. It's not for pre existing claims as well. When you factor in both pre existing claims and new claims the total overturned is now 42%. I will find official proof of this and link it here then you can stop your stupid 4.5% claims.

Even the ministers in a debate said it was nearly 40%. You need to learn how to read figures. You can't just take the stats for NEW CLAIMS and say thats the overall picture of appeals, thats just the stats for NEW CLAIMS.

walter_wobblebottom

Fridge3 wrote: »

Aside from the 40% figure you've quoted being incorrect, quoting appeals only figure doesn't give context to the millions of decisions not appealed.

Statistical release for January 2013 show that of the 2,415,400 WCA's undertaken 108,400 (4.5%) had initial decision overturned.

If this 4.5% it's quite typical for new, unrelated evidence to be introduced as is evident from the ministry of justices' own video, effectively making it a new claim.

The decision-making process for new Employment Support Allowance
applications and Incapacity Benefit reassessments all too often leads to the wrong
decisions and is failing far too many people. Claimants have successfully
challenged these decisions in 38% of appeals. In one third of these cases, the appeals
have been upheld simply because the Tribunal disagrees with the original decision

rather than because new evidence is provided on the day.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/744/744.pdf

damo24

Fridge3 wrote: »

Statistical release for January 2013 show that of the 2,415,400 WCA's undertaken 108,400 (4.5%) had initial decision overturned.

I think that I should point out that page 9 of the pdf at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_jan2013.pdf (Fridge's link) states that "statistical outputs are presented to November 2011, figures for more recent dates are likely to change as more appeal cases are heard by the Tribunal Service" so straight away Fridge is quoting figures from November 2011.

The figures provided (until November 2011) state "To date, 39 per cent of all Fit For Work decisions have been appealed against. These results are only for cases where the assessments process has been completed, and therefore exclude all claims closed before assessment and those still in progress. The following results are for cohorts based on the date claims were started". It goes on to give the results of the appeals as being "69 per cent of initial Fit For Work decisions appealed against were upheld after challenge; and 31 per cent of initial Fit For Work decisions appealed against were overturned after challenge.". Although this does not finitely distinguish whether "after challenge" relates to tribunals only or tribunals and reconsiderations by the Decision Maker, the figures provided later on suggests that this figure relates only to tribunals (I will explain later why I believe this to be the case).

I am no maths professor (and if anyone with more than a 20+ year old grade A GCSE maths can confirm this then please do) but I believe that 31 per cent of 39 per cent is 12.09 per cent of the total which is more than 2.5 times Fridge's figure.

HOWEVER I think that before Fridge picks up just this figure we need to look further into the wording used in the report and the table it refers to which is located at (http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_jan2013_tables.xls again Fridge's link). These quotes refer to table 3 in the spreadsheet which is titled "Outcome of appeals heard on Fit for Work decisions in initial functional assessment by month of claim start, Great Britain".

First issue (apart from it being more than 12 months out of date), according to the pdf, the figures used refer to "all Fit For Work decisions" however the table states that it only refers to "initial functional assessment". If the table is to be believed (and remember that the report is based on the table and not the other way round) then these figures do not include appeals against re-assessment fit for work decisions and appeals against decisions to place a claimant in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) instead of the Support Group (SG). So straight away, a large number of appellants are not included in these figures whether they are successful or not.

Further more, page 14 of the pdf which refers to table 6 in the spreadsheet highlights that between October 2008 and May 2012, 22 per cent of applicants placed in the WRAG were placed there following appeal which obviously relates to a tribunal because it states that an additional 13 per cent are in the WRAG after "reconsideration" which is where a Decision Maker reviews the case before deciding whether to send it to tribunal or not. This is the reason for my belief that the "after challenge" quote from page 9 refers to tribunal cases only. Before Fridge jumps on this part to highlight that I am wrong with everything I have stated, I have explained my reasoning for this belief but even if I am wrong about this belief then the figure still stands that 12.09 per cent of initial fit for work decisions are overturned and if I am correct in my reading of the wording, then an even greater percentage of initial decisions have a different final outcome.

There are no reasons given for this change in outcome despite Fridge's (as yet unsubstantiated) claims of additional evidence being provided although it should be noted that The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts is quoted at http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59274989&postcount=1148 as saying "a third of those successful appeals involving no new evidence".

Unfortunately, Table 5 does not show what percentage of people placed in the SG were placed there on appeal or reconsideration however as the report states that "31 per cent of initial Fit For Work decisions appealed against were overturned after challenge" and 22 per cent of appellants were placed in the WRAG, that would suggest that 9 per cent (22 + 9 = 31) were placed in the SG on appeal.

THIS IS THE ONLY ASSUMPTION I AM MAKING HERE but as 13 percent were placed in the WRAG at reconsideration (almost half the number placed there on appeal) it would be fair to assume that around 4 per cent of people appealing (in one way or another) were placed in the SG at reconsideration.

So looking at these figures, we can see that as of November 2011 (by my reckoning) 12.09 per cent (31 per cent of 39 per cent) of all initial fit for work decisions were "appealed against" and overturned. We need to add to that the (unknown) number of successful challenges which were overturned at reconsideration and the unknown number of people who were moved from the WRAG to the SG both at reconsideration and at appeal.

Bearing in mind the total successful appeal figure is probably much higher than 12.09 percent thanks to challenges after re-assessment, challenges to move from the WRAG to the SG and challenges where a decision is reversed on reconsideration but even if we go at the lowest level of all and say that 12.09 per cent of "initial Fit For Work decisions" were incorrect then Despite Fridge's unsubstantiated claim that:

Fridge3 wrote: »

given context of millions of satisfied outcomes, in the scheme of things, a few disgruntled opinions don't represent the norm.

I would contend that 12.09 per cent is more than "a few disgruntled opinions" and that figure has to be unacceptable in anyone's eyes. I have worked in many and varied industries and services yet I know of none that would see a 12.09 per cent failure rate as acceptable.

If Fridge (or anyone else) can explain how the percentage of initial decisions being changed (with evidence to back up the claims) is anything other than a failure rate I would like to see it.

Fridge, you claim that you have achieved your current work position based on hard work and referrals. Do you think that you would have many referrals if 39 per cent of your first time customers had gone to an independent body as they felt that you had done a bad job and out of that 39 per cent, that independent body felt that you had carried out your job incorrectly in 31 per cent of those challenged jobs which I believe is 12.09 per cent over all? Of course, this figure does not represent repeat customers who then complain to the independent body.

If I have misread or miscalculated any of the figures or statements than I am more than happy to be corrected however please (and that includes you Fridge) provide evidence to back-up you statements. Think of this as a maths exam where you have to "show your working".