New ESA50!

schrodie

Seems they've brought out a new version of the ESA50 with some changes.

Here

rogerblack

To do with the changes outlined in the DWP memo http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-1-13.pdf

The changes mean that people on tube-based chemotherapy for something other than cancer will now not be entitled to the support group, but if someone is likely to get, getting, or recovering from radiotherapy or chemotherapy for cancer - they are.
This means that oral chemo for cancer now entitles you to the support group, where it did not before.
However, for surgical treatment alone, it may not count.
I do not know if surgery alone is common.

Another provision is more insidious, and its effect will depend on the person making the decision.
If you are currently at substantial risk to health if you are found capable for work, or capable for work related activity - that entitles you to the relevant group of ESA.

The changes add the caveat that this doesn't apply, if 'reasonable changes' can be made to the workplace to eliminate this risk.

Very, very nastily - they have now separated the mental and physical aspects of the test.
You can only gain points on the mental side if this is due to a mental problem, or the result of treatment for a mental problem. Similarly on the physical side.
It would seem that - for example - side effects from medicines for a mental condition affecting physical ability now do not count.

For example, someone with poorly controlled blood sugar may undergo blackouts.
As this is not due to a mental disorder, they would not score points.

The example given in the guidance is someone with severe arthritus that to control the arthritus has to take painkillers that severely affect their concentration - to the degree they would previously have been entitled to ESA due to this lack.
As however arthritus is not a mental disorder, and painkillers are not treatment for a mental disorder - the pills effect cannot attract points.

The above is only my understanding, and should not be taken as gospel.

halight

rogerblack wrote: »

To do with the changes outlined in the DWP memo http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-1-13.pdf

The changes mean that people on tube-based chemotherapy for something other than cancer will now not be entitled to the support group, but if someone is likely to get, getting, or recovering from radiotherapy or chemotherapy for cancer - they are.
This means that oral chemo for cancer now entitles you to the support group, where it did not before.
However, for surgical treatment alone, it may not count.
I do not know if surgery alone is common.

Another provision is more insidious, and its effect will depend on the person making the decision.
If you are currently at substantial risk to health if you are found capable for work, or capable for work related activity - that entitles you to the relevant group of ESA.

The changes add the caveat that this doesn't apply, if 'reasonable changes' can be made to the workplace to eliminate this risk.

Very, very nastily - they have now separated the mental and physical aspects of the test.
You can only gain points on the mental side if this is due to a mental problem, or the result of treatment for a mental problem. Similarly on the physical side.
It would seem that - for example - side effects from medicines for a mental condition affecting physical ability now do not count.

For example, someone with poorly controlled blood sugar may undergo blackouts.
As this is not due to a mental disorder, they would not score points.

The example given in the guidance is someone with severe arthritus that to control the arthritus has to take painkillers that severely affect their concentration - to the degree they would previously have been entitled to ESA due to this lack.
As however arthritus is not a mental disorder, and painkillers are not treatment for a mental disorder - the pills effect cannot attract points.

The above is only my understanding, and should not be taken as gospel.

Thank You for explaining that.:beer::beer:

halight

vision2009 wrote: »

More of their tricks "moving the goalposts"
Devious scum!!!!:mad:

Won't be long before there is only One question on the ESA form.

Do you wake up every day ?

No..........15 points.

Yes..........Go and claim JSA.

zzzLazyDaisy

I am deeply shocked by these changes. Just when I thought they could not stoop any lower, they exceed themselves.

Have you seen this example of how the new rules will work...

Example
(old rules)
Tom was diagnosed with epilepsy, and had to give up his job as he was unable to drive. Tom’s epilepsy is poorly controlled, and he has seizures three or four times a week. At least once a week, he suffers from urinary incontinence during a seizure, and needs to change his clothes afterwards. Tom scores 15 points each for continence and loss of consciousness descriptors, and has limited capabilty for work (WRAG)
PLUS He also satisfies the continence descriptor for limited capability for work related activities. Tom is placed in the support group.

(New rules)
Three months later Tom is referred for a further WCA to see if his condition has changed. When assessing LCW and LCWRA, any incontinence during a seizure is disregarded.

So now, he is placed in the WRAG group, because his weekly involuntary incontinence is no longer counted - because loss of conscious is 'mental' and you can't score points for a physical symptom arising out of a mental descriptor. So now he no longer meets the criteria for support group.

Which means he must undertake work related activity, training, or whatever is decided. Anyone who knows someone with epilepsy knows that it can take a week to get over a seizure, someone suffering seizures three or four times a week, and having to cope with (disregarded) continence issues as well, is probably going to miss appointments through not being well enough to attend on a given day owing to fits... what then? Oh wait! He'll be a no show and lose his benefits. Then he won't exist at all...

Shocking, truly shocking.

bitsandpieces

I was shocked that that's the DWP's own example...

zzzLazyDaisy

bitsandpieces wrote: »

I was shocked that that's the DWP's own example...

Exactly.

Not even any attempt at glossing over the effects....

rogerblack

I guess I'm 'fortunate' to have a condition (CFS) which according to the DWP and other guidance has both mental and physical components.

zzzLazyDaisy

rogerblack wrote: »

I guess I'm 'fortunate' to have a condition (CFS) which according to the DWP and other guidance has both mental and physical components.

Well, that's what worries me.

I have friends with ME/CFS. You will know that the Weasel has tried (and succeeded in some quarters) to say this is an 'all in the mind' condition.

You will also know that WHO has said it is neurological (ie physical).

But will the powers that be accept that a condition can be both?

If they say a (physical) condition such as epilepsy, causes seizures which are labelled under "mental", and so justifies disregarding the physical symptoms such as urinary incontinence, where does it stop?

Dx

rogerblack

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

If they say a (physical) condition such as epilepsy, causes seizures which are labelled under "mental", and so justifies disregarding the physical symptoms such as urinary incontinence, where does it stop?

Dx

At a boundary defined by evolving caselaw, as these cases hit the upper tribunal, in late 2014 or so.

The guidance from the DWP has no legal force - only the bare words of the descriptors and surrounding language.

I am unsure if the varying treatment of people, entirely ignoring some disability results is legal under the equality act - if not - there may be a case for judicial review.

zzzLazyDaisy

rogerblack wrote: »

At a boundary defined by evolving caselaw, as these cases hit the upper tribunal, in late 2014 or so.

The guidance from the DWP has no legal force - only the bare words of the descriptors and surrounding language.

I am unsure if the varying treatment of people, entirely ignoring some disability results is legal under the equality act - if not - there may be a case for judicial review.

Okay, but in the real world, in the meantime, lots of ordinary people, who don't understand these things, are going to drop through the ever increasing holes in the net