The Miracle of St George

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

But those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

I recall during the early 1990s the Tory Government introduced stricter controls on the eligibility criteria for Invalidity Benefits on the premise that many claimants were malingerers. They tried to deter people from claiming through aggressive assessments that were eventually discontinued as unacceptable. Of course these assessments are so much better.

I forget the exact figures but the number 'on the sick' in the UK have gone up something like 4 fold since the mid-70s despite people being a lot healthier. The implication must be that people are fiddling the system or the system has started to include people as sick that would not have been considered so previously.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

I forget the exact figures but the number 'on the sick' in the UK have gone up something like 4 fold since the mid-70s despite people being a lot healthier. The implication must be that people are fiddling the system or the system has started to include people as sick that would not have been considered so previously.

Probably some of the former but mostly the latter - just my opinion.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Probably some of the former but mostly the latter - just my opinion.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Moby

MS1950 wrote: »

I note that (unhelpfully) The Telegraph doesn't offer a source or link for these statistically surprising figures (apart from a vague reference to 'latest government figures'); despite the fact that the DWP website is awash with statistical sources?

So I searched.

Firstly there is nothing resembling the Telegraph's claims in the DWP's 'Recent statistics releases':

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_ibr;

while their ‘News and announcements’ page reports that ‘Publication of National and Official Statistics on State Benefits: Delay to August 2012 statistics’:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=news

So the most up to date statistics relevant to the Telegraph’s claims are the ‘Employment and Support Allowance - Incapacity Benefits Reassessment: Work Capability Assessments’ released in January 2013:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_ibr

These show that in the period April 2011 to May 2012 out of an overall ‘reassessment' caseload of 603600, 19700 are listed as ‘Closed before assessment’ (Table 1 of excel spreadsheet); while the accompanying pdf explains:

“2.5.1 Status of claims closed before assessment and those still in progress – Table 1

In the period from December 2011 to February 2012 9 per cent of incapacity benefits claims that were referred for reassessment had not completed the WCA process by August 2012; of these 3 per cent were closed before a decision was made and 6 per cent were still in progress”;

So at most 19700 were actually ‘closed before a decision was made’; and even of those, there’s no indication why they were closed.

None of which bears the slightest resemblance to the Telegraph’s sensational and unsupported claim that ‘878,300…decided not to have an official assessment’.

As I understand that you are some sort of professional economist, presumably with a commitment to accuracy, I’m sure you wouldn’t really want to be associated with what seems to be a piece of inaccurate politically motivated sensationalism – would you?

Thanks for that...I couldn't be bothered to do the spade work. You show the reality behind the spin!

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

I forget the exact figures but the number 'on the sick' in the UK have gone up something like 4 fold since the mid-70s despite people being a lot healthier. The implication must be that people are fiddling the system or the system has started to include people as sick that would not have been considered so previously.

The initial definition of who received payment was very narrow. I have read similar elsewhere, but for speed this morning need to refer to Wikipedia, which I appreciate may be the subject of some firm editing on this subject at the moment. However it states that income supplement for long-term disability was first introduced in 1971, so you could probably expect to see some ramping up in the early days. Payments then increased under the tories who encouraged take up to massage the unemployment figures.

In 1995 (so Tories still in power) Incapacity Benefit replaced Invalidity Benefit. Then in 2008 (under Labour) it was replaced by Employment and Support Allowance. Periodical Personal Assessments were introduced then. This of course takes said assessments to the next level.

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

In 1995 (so Tories still in power) Incapacity Benefit replaced Invalidity Benefit. Then in 2008 (under Labour) it was replaced by Employment and Support Allowance. Periodical Personal Assessments were introduced then. This of course takes said assessments to the next level.

Thanks.

IMO sure that no government "gives away" unnecessarily and that claims are challenged. As you say in the short term this is anew brush.

IMO there is scope creep as additional marginal classes get drawn in and those supervising the scheme suffer fatigue over the life of a system i.e. they morph from what was the intention.

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

That's what I'd always assumed but if you look at the numbers, big increases in the number of people 'on the sick' started during the 1974-9 Labour Government. In some ways that is logical as that's when unemployment figures first became contentious.

Sorry, I can't post a link but if you google it you'll see what I mean.

Has the boom in Incapacity Benefit claimant numbers passed its peak ?

Page 5:

"the evolution of the IB register

As we can see from Figure 1, the ’history’ of working age men (16 to 64 year old) on IVB/IB divides quite neatly into three periods.

1. From its beginning in 1971 and up to the end of the first half of the 1980s there were around 750,000 men on IVB/IB.

2. A decade of steep growth (1987 to 1996) doubled numbers (growth averaged 10% per annum).

3. Growth stopped in 1996, and the register has since remained at or around 1.5 million.

The history of working age women (16-59) on IVB/IB, broadly parallels that of men, but with numbers around 500,000 lower (again see Figure 1).

1. An early phase with around 250,000 claimants.

2. A growth phase (1987 to 1996) during which claimant numbers tripled from 250,000 to 750,000.

3. Slower growth since 1996".


It's worth looking at Figure 1 (page 22) - as it shows clearly in graphical form when (and under what governments) the big increase in Incapacity Benefit claimants occurred.


The report also discusses why the increase happened and refers out to other useful research.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

That's what I'd always assumed but if you look at the numbers, big increases in the number of people 'on the sick' started during the 1974-9 Labour Government. In some ways that is logical as that's when unemployment figures first became contentious.

Sorry, I can't post a link but if you google it you'll see what I mean.

Have you got one that predates this?

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

I forget the exact figures but the number 'on the sick' in the UK have gone up something like 4 fold since the mid-70s despite people being a lot healthier. The implication must be that people are fiddling the system or the system has started to include people as sick that would not have been considered so previously.

I have no problem with excluding those who are not genuinely disabled to some kind of standard. What concerns me is that those people who qualify but are denied benefit in the rush to exclude the undeserving. I guess Cameron regards these as casualties in the war he is fighting.

MS1950

StevieJ wrote: »

Have you got one that predates this?

Has the boom in Incapacity Benefit claimant numbers passed its peak ?

Figure 1 (page 22) goes back to 1971 (I've got it saved as an image - but for some reason the 'Insert Image' link won't let me insert it?)