Doctor who worked for ATOS says benefit assessments 'unfair'

Richie-from-the-Boro

rogerblack wrote: »

This is very far from the truth, in some cases.
While LIMA can have a large amount of input in some cases, the HCP is free to input large amounts of free text (and in both of my WCAs did).

Am I claiming that the system is as designed fair for claimants, if everyone performs their jobs to the best of their abilities - no. In many cases it is systematically unfair due to the specific condition being poorly captured by the descriptors, and the problems many claimants may have with evidence due to their conditions.

But, it's a hell of a lot better if they do make the effort, driven perhaps by conscience than if they are simply treating it as better paid than burger flipping, and less walking than doing hospital rounds.

rogerblack,

We have always disagreed on this. For my part I have the evidence of the % of successful appeals for both DLA & ESA. If you were correct there would be very few, perhaps a portion of 5% or so - who knows its never been trialled. We both know its 8 times or so higher than that 5% figure .. .. way way more than an acceptable level of accuracy.

I you were correct there would be hardly any appeals and even fewer overturns. The very fact that the design of the system """is systematically unfair due to the specific condition being poorly captured by the descriptors, and the problems many claimants may have with evidence due to their conditions""" suggests it was never designed to get at truth, but for a wholly other and much more malevolent purpose. You would seem to be saying that this mismatch on fairness is by accident or because the patients are not able to gather information. I'm saying its deliberately designed that way - to catch all people out.

Not everyone shares your rosy view of their treatment at the hands of the HCP. Maybe this qualified HCP doctor was wrong when he said the things he did of ATOS & the LiMA delivery system - the thing is he worked there for a couple of years - and you did not. You may have had what you consider reasonable treatment as you have said so many times in the past. The doctor has had 30 months insider knowledge you had a 30 minute interview.

You compared to most - maybe 99% of others, are descriptor articulate and have a very deep understanding of the pre-requirements of the assessment system - an understanding that is at least equivalent to the HCP. I don't consider your experiences with the assessment even remotely compatible to most others undergoing the assessment.

Conservatives - a party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation, corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine, sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint... dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire. - Churchill while still a Liberal'

N.B. : My bold.
NOTE : It shouldn't be some cases, it should not either be all cases, it should be fair and accurate all of the time for all people regardless of their abilities.

rogerblack

[QUOTE=Richie-from-the-Boro;61323277
I you were correct there would be hardly any appeals and even fewer overturns. The very fact that the design of the system """is systematically unfair due to the specific condition being poorly captured by the descriptors, and the problems many claimants may have with evidence due to their conditions""" suggests it was never designed to get at truth, but for a wholly other and much more malevolent purpose. You would seem to be saying that this mismatch on fairness is by accident or because the patients are not able to gather information. I'm saying its deliberately designed that way - to catch all people out..[/QUOTE]

It is not my view that the ESA system is in most measurable aspects the ideal system, even if operated perfectly.

However, if everyone consistently did their jobs as according to the written rules, conscientiously, it could be a hell of a lot better than it is.

It should not require the claimant to be an expert in the system. At the moment, claimants who are, or who have expert help preparing their cases have a massive advantage. In principle, this should not be so obviously the case - if everyone did their job, rather than the bare minimum.

Are there failings in the system - yes - massive ones, not the least of which are the designed-in unfairnesses.

But staff trying to make a difference - and make good decisions - can make a difference.

Is that blunted by internal quotas and targets - it seems likely.

Is ATOS intentionally being used to deflect criticism from the DWP and government over this - absolutely certainly.

Are ATOS performing in ways other than the DWP would desire - given the contract - probably not.

The system is unfair in several independent ways.
Designed in unfairness caused by the descriptors:
Someone who can't flex their elbows to put a hand in a shirt pocket but has no other disability gets the support group.
Designed in unfairness due to the general test - it is not explicitly a test that tests if the claimant has any reasonable prospects of employment due to their disability.
Policy decisions like meaning someone disabled from birth is not entitled to contributory ESA, meaning they are nothing but a financial drain in any relationships they may have.

Then there are more lower-level unfairnesses not through legislation, but through the way the DWP operates the system.
For example, an obvious test of decisionmakers quality of decisions would be to have another DM look at the evidence, and come to a view, and then compare their answer.
This is never done.
Similarly, the DWP chose to write the contract with ATOS in such a way that overturned decisions or successful appeals have any financial penalty at all.

Are there ATOS unfairnesses heaped on this - absolutely certainly.
Many HCPs will be unable to properly type and communicate with the patient - I have in the past said a good secretary may actually be better at this job than many doctors.
This is simply because they have decent typing speed, and can concentrate on other things - like what the patient is saying - rather than having to shush them, and concentrate on hunting and pecking on the keyboard.

In short - my view is that to concentrate on LIMA, or ATOS, or any one aspect of the system is misguided.

They all have substantial flaws, and in many cases those flaws are known about and intentionally not fixed for policy reasons.

However - at all levels of the system - can people trying to do their job conscientiously improve things - yes.

I just wish that IDS/McVey would lead on this, rather than as it seems at times demonising their 'clients' - and setting a tone for the whole edifice.

Brassedoff

JS477 wrote: »

I suppose what disabled people want is to be treated fairly and with dignity and not be treated in the manner which has shocked so many people including MPs (recall the atos debate a few weeks ago) for example Here

This will not be achieved when atos is working for a government which is target driven e.g. McVey has stated that the DWP wants at least 500,000 off DLA. Atos will do as they're told if they want the taxpayers' £millions.

Personally I couldn't work for a company like atos, probably because I do have a conscience and I suppose a sense of decency and fair play. Some people [obviously] can but I just couldn't look at another sick/disabled human being as a target!

I disagree with what you say Roger. I am not in the "no reform or check camp" far from it. I feel many short term illnesses should not have any entitlement to DLA or Support Group. They should have a benefit, but not that which is the same as the real disabled who live with a lifelong event. It only encourages this set to believe they are disabled when they suffer from a condition, not disability.

I also believe that checks should be as vigorous as possible, full medical details disclosed, independent expert varification, a full and robust medical thst includes bloods etc. Like it or not, this will weed out the Google or School gate disabled who are after the money, car and non requirement for work. You have to ask why in the instance of households where both are parents are professions earning over £45K, only 2.2% have children who are disabled and whose parents claim any sort of benefit. Yet where the parents are not professionals and live in poor areas, that figure explodes to 22% who claim their children are disabled and claim DLA, Credits and other benefits. Explain that why the Office for Disabiliy Issues has these figures? It pans out in real life, I've seen it. Whether anyone likes it or not! Why does one form of disability or another affect over 20% of the children in homes where they live in social housing or have poorly educated parents on low wages?

Why is it that those in lower paid jobs are more likely to claim both ESA or DLA than those with professional qualifications?

Why do a higher percentage of people living in areas that are predominantly social or former social housing more likely to claim ESA and much more DLA and have a car from the motorbility scheme?


You could argue, to protect the genuine, they do have to be more vigorous in the testing regimes, but they must tell the truth and not done what ATOS has been accused of in the report.

Sources:

Source: Family Resources Survey 2010/11
Source: Family Resources Survey 2010/11
Source: Source: Family Resources Survey 2010/11; *State Pension age changed from 2010/11 and so the definition of State Pension age and Working age is not consistent over time. The State Pension age for men is 65 for men born before 6 April 1959. For women born on or before 6 April 1950, the State Pension age is 60. From 6 April 2010, State Pension age for women born on or before 6 April 1950 started to increase gradually between April 2010 and November 2018. For the purpose of this data, women are defined to be of State Pension age based on their date of birth and the date of the interview
Source: Family Resources Survey 2010/11
Source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2012
Source: National Pupil Database 2005/06-2010/11 *These figures are final with the exception of 2010/11 data which are revised figures
Source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2012
Source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2012
Source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2012
Source: ONS Opinions Survey 2011
Source: Fair Treatment at Work Survey 2008
Source: ONS Opinions Survey 2010
Source: Taking Part Survey 2011/12
Source: Citizenship Survey 2010/11
Source: Citizenship Survey 2010/11
Source: ONS Opinions Survey 2011
Source: Department for Transport’s Annual Sample Survey of Bus Operators
Source: British Social Attitudes Survey 2011
Source: British Crime Survey 2010/11
Source: British Crime Survey 2010/11
Source: English House Condition Survey 2008
Source: Survey of English Housing 2007/08

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

. You have to ask why in the instance of households where both are parents are professions earning over £45K, only 2.2% have children who are disabled and whose parents claim any sort of benefit. Yet where the parents are not professionals and live in poor areas, that figure explodes to 22% who claim their children are disabled and claim DLA, Credits and other benefits. Explain that why the Office for Disabiliy Issues has these figures?

Many, many reasons.
Firstly, your implication is that this is due to fraud.
Every measure of fraud done by the DWP indicated fraud on illness and disability is low - comparable to benefit paid in error, and significantly less than underclaiming.

As I mentioned - for people with high incomes - they don't feel the need to claim various benefits, for what may be to them trivial sums.
Filling in a long form for £20 or £40 a week, when they don't feel they really need it, and aren't really wanting to emphasise their childs disability is not especially likely - even though the child may be entitled.

Secondly - people in lower income brackets have very, very significantly worse health.
This starts before birth - a mother with a steady job and plenty of resources is likely to be relatively well nourished, is less likely to be a smoker, and is more likely to attend the doctor as frequently as is recommended.
It goes through early life, working life, and to death - on average people from deprived areas die earlier.
On the other hand - maybe they're all faking that too.

Brassedoff

rogerblack wrote: »

Many, many reasons.
Firstly, your implication is that this is due to fraud.
Every measure of fraud done by the DWP indicated fraud on illness and disability is low - comparable to benefit paid in error, and significantly less than underclaiming.
As I mentioned - for people with high incomes - they don't feel the need to claim various benefits, for what may be to them trivial sums.

Filling in a long form for £20 or £40 a week, when they don't feel they really need it, and aren't really wanting to emphasise their childs disability is not especially likely - even though the child may be entitled.

Secondly - people in lower income brackets have very, very significantly worse health.
This starts before birth - a mother with a steady job and plenty of resources is likely to be relatively well nourished, is less likely to be a smoker, and is more likely to attend the doctor as frequently as is recommended.
It goes through early life, working life, and to death - on average people from deprived areas die earlier.
On the other hand - maybe they're all faking that too.

Its not classed as fraud when someone know just how to complete the forms or make certain behaviours manifest themselves is it. They never catch them to call it fraud. My mother always told my younger sister to play my dad up when he had us for a day every week. You cannot deny it, kids do as their parents beckon

The figures and findings were copied and pasted some very long and boring research I have had to do for a product that is aimed at one area of the disabled market that gave the specific condition a level playing field. The take up in these groups was so low it was a waste, but we were told by several people in Sure Start, that "anything which would leave people in this area in danger of losing their benefit is a non starter". Then seeing the proof of the pudding settled it for me.

Don't attack me, the research by the Government and other bodies does not lie.

And if you claim they would not claim it due to trifling amounts, why the fuss over child benefit which is far less?

If you look at the percentages, its diagnoses, not claiming of benefit.
Debate!

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

Its not classed as fraud when someone know ... make certain behaviours manifest themselves is it.

This is fraud, if it is done to mislead as to the persons entitlement to the benefit.
It is clearly not fraud to get advice on the proper way of presenting accurate facts about the disability in order to get benefit that one is legally entitled to.
Similarly to how it is not fraud to employ an accountant to properly do your taxes.
(Or indeed, to come up with exotic but quite legal schemes to pay as little tax as possible)

As to your point - the prospect of losing my benefit is extremely scary.
I am terrified of it, because I know I am barely able to cope with self-care.

It is extremely difficult from this background position to take actions that though they are consistent with my reported disability may seem to an outsider to indicate I am fit for work.

markmarkmark

Just like to say a really informative and interesting discussion from both sides. And no one has mentioned Hitler yet! I enjoyed reading.

rogerblack

markmarkmark wrote: »

Just like to say a really informative and interesting discussion from both sides. And no one has mentioned Hitler yet! I enjoyed reading.

Having one testicle does not qualify one for DLA.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Chew your way through these GOV facts and you will find that the staggering 7.5k [three quarters of a million appeals last year] is about to rise to 8.3k cases. ESA last year formed 181k in the whole '11-'12 year - this year the first six months is already at 113k, whick will be an 'ish of 250k by the end of the year. Ref #12 above that's 42% of ESA cases from DWP/ATOS/LiMA that are judged at an independent tribunal to be wrong.

Clearly then the standards of the decision making are wrong or the LiMA programme is contrived to 'spit' out an extra 42% of cases regardless of truth. As (1) all decisions made by DWP/DM are on (2) ATOS recommendations following an (3) LiMA assessment - ATOS are not finding the (4) truth of the HCP assessment or are operating a mathematical formulae for (5) GOV that gives deliberately arbitrarily and knowingly incorrect by 42% decisions designed to a predetermined treasury reduction strategy.

ESA appeals in Q2 of '09'-'10 were 29k an in Q2 of '10-'11 were 73k - 42% found in favour of the claimant, therefore 42% of DWP/ATOS/LiMA decisions in ESA cases are plain wrong! That's not counting the 800+ cases lost 'in space' [outstanding for one reason or another]. My earlier claim that its a set up, and everyone involved knows its a set up stands. Each person taking the dirty shilling knows what they are doing to their own people, throwing them over the cliff for money with the exception of Greg Wood and others they know its wrong - they just choose to turn a blind eye and collect the dirty shilling.

- appeals who mentioned the cost of the appeals ? @ circa £500mi££ion since the Coalition came to power
- its close to an average of £400 per case unit, currently costing the taxpayer to deliver the misery of non-justice for the 42%
- from Oct this year the DWP will require all claimants to ask for a pre-appeal re-examination before they can even appeal
- even when you comply with the mandatory reconsideration, GOV refused to set a time limit for how long the DWP can take
- guess what - during [STRIKE]erm[/STRIKE] reconsideration, ESA claimants can't claim this sickness benefit and will be automatically put on JSA
- that's after recruiting 20 more judges, dismantling the CAB and other welfare representation and unpaid advice help
- dismantling the welfare advice organisations that supplied legal representation did lead to a reduction from 65% to 42%
- re-opening redundant tribunal buildings, and splitting the 3 person tribunal into 3 individuals working separately
- I've been on record in this group for over a year saying that the cost outweighs the savings the treasury make
- I've been on record in this group for many years saying the disadvantaged, ill, disabled, unemployed, vulnerable are denied justice

With all these manipulations, power, the Goebbels press, the acquiescent BBC, the outright lies of IDS and other gerrymandering the 'cack' handed swivel-eyed still can't even break even .. .. even after inflicting terror on the 42% vulnerable old, ill and disabled, and importantly denying them access to law to secure what they are entitled to. Worra mob !

Next prediction Pensioners, all of them, not just the £oaded voluntarily handing back their bus pass / winter fuel allowance, but all pensioners across the board. They won't even bother with means testing or the pretence of LiMA with the same appeals outcome as above - they'll just swing the helve and chop out whatever % of paid-in over 50 years pensioner benefits they think they can get away with and give to private sector friends to create short-term minimum wage jobs and an artificial boost in output figures .. .. .. and get re-elected - Worra mob !

Brassedoff

Yep Richie, I agree LIMA is a bag of poo, but I have been judged to be totally incapable of work. Yet I manage to knock out 60 hours a week. Because I changed myself to fit the market.

The other side of the coin is people saying they cannot do any form of work which is wrong. Nearly everyone (and I mean a big nearly) can do some sort of work. I recently pointed someone who was suffering from depression and could not face going out of the house who I know to a way he could gets some more money in and do some work that fitted his condition. He was entitled to top rates in DLA (you could debate that point), and was on IB. I showed him how he could work as many or as few hours a week for the AA at home. He gradually took on more and more hours and now works full time. He earns basic rate plus a good commission so makes a good living. He still has his DLA, but no longer has IB.

The other side of the story is that no matter what anyone says, benefits were too easy to get up to a year or so ago. What's wrong is that they use LIMA. If they scrapped that, had a set of descriptors, allowed the disabled to work in a flexible way. By which I mean, someone can be self employed, work for an employer etc, but only claim for the days they are not fit to work, you are able to allow people to work when fit enough. Get benefit when not. This is done in a way that there are no penalties insofar as to the current system of ending a claim. Opening a claim, waiting for the qualifying period etc. You would then be able to give many claimants their self respect back, and, the chance to earn a bit more money. It also helps an employer, someone with a condition who can work a day or two a week as a book keeper can get work a day a week for someone who only has enough work for a day. Employers would employ this flexible workforce, it helps them when they don't have full time hours. It also proves to both party's that its possible to have/do it.

There is a workable system out there, someone needs the balls to get it in place. Maybe they should ask the real disabled, not the charities that employ the CEO's at £KKK' rates to be consulted?