PIP debate-live now

satarical

dori2o wrote: »

therefore by describing the pain, the Doctor can register a balanced indication of how severe the pain is. That is what the index was designed for. Not to describe by number or distance, but by words.

I'm not saying that every person who suffers from CRPS/Causalgia/RSD/Neuropathic pain suffers exactly the same effects with the same score, but this is the average.

Thank you! At last we are getting somewhere.

I am so pleased that you concede that it is the patient that has to describe the pain.

I accept that your graph may show the average, which means that there are highs and lows.

Given that it relies on the honesty of the patient is it not possible that those who have the pain level at the lower end of the scale think to themselves - 'hey if I admit this, it is more than likely that my benefits will stop. No one can prove that it isn't at the highest point of the scale so I'll tell everybody including my GP that it is'.

I still maintain that allowing a patient/claimant to describe the pain level, no matter what scale or system you use, is wide open to abuse.

People who are honest will or could lose out to those that have no conscience and will do or say anything that will get them an award.

When assessing someone for either a disability or sickness related benefit it should be based entirely on factors that the patient/claimant cannot interfere with or have control over.

I have just had a look at the scale you have mentioned for information on just one of my many conditions that I class as being somewhere in the middle of my overall health position.
This one disease using the McGill scale puts it at 42 out of 50! That is a load of rubbish! I know how I feel and taking the combinations of medication I would honestly score it at 15 out of 50! So should I be telling the DWP that my pain score is at that high level or should I be telling them that it is the least of my problems?
Looking at another site, this same condition is rated as the 2nd highest for any condition where pain is concerned.
Thank goodness that I don't include pain or severe discomfort in any of my claims. I rely entirely on provable matters via tests, scans etc.

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

Thank you! At last we are getting somewhere.

I am so pleased that you concede that it is the patient that has to describe the pain.

I accept that your graph may show the average, which means that there are highs and lows.

Given that it relies on the honesty of the patient is it not possible that those who have the pain level at the lower end of the scale think to themselves - 'hey if I admit this, it is more than likely that my benefits will stop. No one can prove that it isn't at the highest point of the scale so I'll tell everybody including my GP that it is'.

I still maintain that allowing a patient/claimant to describe the pain level, no matter what scale or system you use, is wide open to abuse.

People who are honest will or could lose out to those that have no conscience and will do or say anything that will get them an award.

So what do you suggest is the right way to determine a level of pain? You're obviously so well versed in this you should have no problem at all giving a detailed example of how pain can be measured.

Face it, you're an idiot.

satarical

dori2o wrote: »

So what do you suggest is the right way to determine a level of pain? You're obviously so well versed in this you should have no problem at all giving a detailed example of how pain can be measured.

Face it, you're an idiot.

Simple - pain & severe discomfort should be excluded from all Welfare benefit claims!

Leave it to the experts to assess the level of functionality by assessment.

Keep the patient/claimant completely out of the system so that they cannot interfere with the results.

Honestly, if the DWP/ATOS were to ask you "are you in a great deal of pain for most of the day?" What do you think most people would say?

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

Simple - pain & severe discomfort should be excluded from all Welfare benefit claims!

Leave it to the experts to assess the level of functionality by assessment.

Keep the patient/claimant completely out of the system so that they cannot interfere with the results.

Honestly, if the DWP/ATOS were to ask you "are you in a great deal of pain for most of the day?" What do you think most people would say?

And it would have to be backed up by the medical evidence. You cannot just exclude a certain group of disabilities. That is discrimination.

Time to ignore this AE I think.


GOODBYE SUNNYONE

satarical

dori2o wrote: »

And it would have to be backed up by the medical evidence. You cannot just exclude a certain group of disabilities. That is discrimination.

Time to ignore this AE I think.


GOODBYE SUNNYONE

Leave it to the experts to assess the level of functionality by assessment and by using evidence gathered from other professionals that does not include or has been tainted by comments and opinions given by the patient. Evidence that is completely backed up by medical tests carried out and nothing else.

Get rid of the self diagnosis of how much pain or severe discomfort is involved - if it can't be tested for it should be ignored.

This is where PIP has scored well - it is an assessment based entirely on medical fact, not opinion of the GP, consultant or the patient. The sooner pain and severe discomfort disappear from the Welfare system testing, the better.

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

Leave it to the experts to assess the level of functionality by assessment and by using evidence gathered from other professionals that does not include or has been tainted by comments and opinions given by the patient. Evidence that is completely backed up by medical tests carried out and nothing else.

Get rid of the self diagnosis of how much pain or severe discomfort is involved - if it can't be tested for it should be ignored.

This is where PIP has scored well - it is an assessment based entirely on medical fact, not opinion of the GP, consultant or the patient. The sooner pain and severe discomfort disappear from the Welfare system testing, the better.

I do leave it to the experts. My Pain consultant IS an expert. He knows by the copious amounts of medications that I take that I am in severe pain all the time. He knows from the restricted movement that I have in my leg that I am in severe pain. He knows from the treatment I am receiving for depression that I am in severe pain.

The Pain Dr before him knew this was the case, as did the physiotherapist and psycholiogist, all of whom declared there was no further medical treatment that was an option for reducing the pain.

Someone can tell a Dr, or the DWP/ATOS that they are in significant amounts of pain, but if the medical facts presented in the form of letters, reports, etc from GP's/Specialists don't back that up, i.e. the medications being taken, xrays, mri scans, etc etc, then it's quite easy to see where one is swinging the lead.

Someone who claims the pain is severe but is taking only paracetamol and ibuprofen, is clearly not in severe discomfort to the extent that they would qualify for benefits.

Someone who makes the same claim but is receiving high doses of narcotic pain medication, is being treated for secondary conditions such as Depression, anxiety, sleep disorders etc, who is recorded as having problems with medication side effects, is obviously not swinging the lead.

You are another who seems to believe that DLA is given just on the basis of what someone writes on a for, without medical evidence to back it up.

I know, from first hand experience that this is not true. I ended up in hospital as a result of my claiming DLA and the additional stress it piled on me. It certainly is not a case of writing what youmlike on the form and sitting back waiting for the money.

Furthermore you cannot simply rid the system of a group of disabled people. Chronic pain is a disability. However much you deny it, you will not change that fact.

The definition of the word Disability

1. lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.

2. a physical or mental handicap, especially one that prevents a person from living a full, normallife or from holding a gainful job.

3. anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage:

4. the state or condition of being disabled.

5. legal incapacity; legal disqualification.

Chronic pain meets this definition perfectly. You have previously claimed that Chronic pain doesn't exist, that ALL pain in all cases can be relieved by medication. Maybe you should explain this theory to the medical world. There are scientists the world over who have been looking for the cure to chronic pain. Who knew all this time it was you that had the answer. You stand to make a fortune from your fantastic discovery.

On a more serious note, Quite simply you (whichever poster you actually are) are one of those who has been turned down for benefits because you are not as bad as you claim to be, obviously you have been unable to back up your claim with medical evidence.

Therefore because you do not suffer as much as some others, you believe the system is wrong and therefore nobody should be able to claim for similar conditions, even where evidence proves beyond a doubt, that their condition is significantly worse than your own.

If you can't have it, nobody should get it. Thats the attitude of an uneducated, jealous, idiot.

rogerblack

satarical wrote: »

Thank you and well put.

Yes I honestly believe in that context that someone somewhere has seen sense along the lines that I have been arguing and realised that the old DLA description has had to be dumped as it was too wide a descriptor. Thank goodness that PIP is correcting it's overuse and abuse.

This activity considers a claimant’s physical ability to move around without severe discomfort such as breathlessness, pain or fatigue. This includes the ability to stand and then move up to 20 metres, up to 50 metres, up to 200 metres and over 200 metres.

From http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-assessment-guide.pdf

Please stop this scaremongering.

schrodie

From Q51 on may help the 20m Working example 2 issue!

Here

dori2o

I've been reading through the transcript from the Committee.

I found the section from Q112 to Q117 quite interesting.

The chair at Q112 made the point that previously Esther McVey (MP) made the statement that working people who lost the help they get through DLA as they don't qualify for PIP or at least not the same level of PIP, might be able to gain help through access to work.

The example was a person who relies on their mobility car to get to and from work, and that without it they would be restricted to taxi's to and from work at a cost of approx £30 a day.

The question was asked whether AtW would collect the whole shortfall.

The answer, eventually from Esther McVey was that in her opinion, the help needed would come from AtW.

The example in this case is similar to a concern I have. I cannot travel on public transport either due to the fact I can't sit on them due to severe pain and discomfort, due to not being guaranteed a seat, and due to being restricted in the use of a Mobility Scooter on public transport.

I travel to work daily in my own car, using part of the DLA to finance the petrol/wear and tear costs.

Without taking into account wear and tear costs, it works out at £40 a week in petrol, so approx £173 a month in petrol alone.

If I wasn't disabled and I had no problems traveling on public transport it would cost the following.

Tram - £960 a year (£80 a month)
Bus - £580 a year ( £48ish a month)
(Lets not also forget that I get free public transport after 9:30 due to disabled persons travel card and half fares before 9:30 so my public transport costs could be significantly less , approx £27 a month)

So, you can see, traveling by car is hardly a moneysaving idea.

If I was awarded the lower payment of PIP, or even denied PIP, that would mean I would suffer a substantial loss just in being able to get to and from work.

According to Esther McVey however, I should be able to claim the additional costs of traveling to work in a car.

So assuming I use the tram method, and I don't have the disabled persons travel pass, then AtW should provide me with funds of at least £93 a month to cover at least the fuel. That obviously includes nothing for wear and tear.

I thought that the whole idea of this was to bring down welfare spending, but in this instance all they are doing is pushing the costs from one scheme to another.

Reducing the disability benefits bill, but potentially substantially increasing the AtW budget.

CTcelt1988

dori2o wrote: »

I've been reading through the transcript from the Committee.

I found the section from Q112 to Q117 quite interesting.

The chair at Q112 made the point that previously Esther McVey (MP) made the statement that working people who lost the help they get through DLA as they don't qualify for PIP or at least not the same level of PIP, might be able to gain help through access to work.

The example was a person who relies on their mobility car to get to and from work, and that without it they would be restricted to taxi's to and from work at a cost of approx £30 a day.

The question was asked whether AtW would collect the whole shortfall.

The answer, eventually from Esther McVey was that in her opinion, the help needed would come from AtW.

The example in this case is similar to a concern I have. I cannot travel on public transport either due to the fact I can't sit on them due to severe pain and discomfort, due to not being guaranteed a seat, and due to being restricted in the use of a Mobility Scooter on public transport.

I travel to work daily in my own car, using part of the DLA to finance the petrol/wear and tear costs.

Without taking into account wear and tear costs, it works out at £40 a week in petrol, so approx £173 a month in petrol alone.

If I wasn't disabled and I had no problems traveling on public transport it would cost the following.

Tram - £960 a year (£80 a month)
Bus - £580 a year ( £48ish a month)
(Lets not also forget that I get free public transport after 9:30 due to disabled persons travel card and half fares before 9:30 so my public transport costs could be significantly less , approx £27 a month)

So, you can see, traveling by car is hardly a moneysaving idea.

If I was awarded the lower payment of PIP, or even denied PIP, that would mean I would suffer a substantial loss just in being able to get to and from work.

According to Esther McVey however, I should be able to claim the additional costs of traveling to work in a car.

So assuming I use the tram method, and I don't have the disabled persons travel pass, then AtW should provide me with funds of at least £93 a month to cover at least the fuel. That obviously includes nothing for wear and tear.

I thought that the whole idea of this was to bring down welfare spending, but in this instance all they are doing is pushing the costs from one scheme to another.

Reducing the disability benefits bill, but potentially substantially increasing the AtW budget.

In my situation, if I lost my HRM and had to claim to AtW, then it would cost them over £2000 a month to pay a taxi to my work as I work 30 miles away. Catching the bus is no option as the bus stop is too far away, plus I would have to get 2 buses to get there which would be awkward.

Train times aren't good either to get to my work, plus I would have to get 2 trains and 2 taxis. A taxi would be the only way Access to Work would be able to get me to my work, if they paid £2,000 a month, then it wold be cheaper for them to give me enhanced rate of PIP! Crazy! Access to work budget would have to increase if this happens to a lot of people.