ATOS loses ESA & PIP Assessment Contract

tokenfield

I think that the simple answer is for every ESA/DLA/PIP claimant to be awarded the benefit on the strength of their application alone - they aren't going to lie or exaggerate are they? No matter what you do or who does what, all that everyone wants is to win and be awarded the benefit that they have claimed.
No matter what system you have in place, those that fail it will always complain that it wasn't a fair process.

So give them all the benefit that they applied for and then there will be no complaints - the government will achieve 100% customer satisfaction in a tenth of the time they currently take. Everyone wins - don't they??

SPELLKASTER

So what will happen in 2 years time when I get reassessed for ESA!?

schrodie

SPELLKASTER wrote: »

So what will happen in 2 years time when I get reassessed for ESA!?

Hopefully it'll be done by a competent, compassionate and ethical organisation that doesn't stick to government targets.

rogerblack

tokenfield wrote: »

No matter what system you have in place, those that fail it will always complain that it wasn't a fair process.

Which is reasonable enough as a position - but starts to look a bit flawed when you realise that 40% of appeals to tribunal succeed.
And that the vast majority of appeals are unrepresented appeals - appeals where the claimant is represented - 80% or so succeed. (Some of this difference will be due to appeals services not representing poor appeals - but even services who represent everyone get >70% usually)

Do I think that the claimant should always be believed - no.
Do I think that the decisionmaker should as a matter of course contact the claimant if there are questions which could go either way - yes.

Do I think that the assessment - whoever does it - should be stretched at least 20 minutes, to give the assessor time to read all the background material, and the prior assessment result - yes.
Should claimants that are not entitled to ESA have a full explanation why - yes.
Should they still be able to access extra help into work - of course.

Do this right, and you can actually save money through having fewer appeals, and not having claimants who will ultimately lose being paid ESA for most of a year while their appeal churns through.

Brassedoff

rogerblack wrote: »

Which is reasonable enough as a position - but starts to look a bit flawed when you realise that 40% of appeals to tribunal succeed.
And that the vast majority of appeals are unrepresented appeals - appeals where the claimant is represented - 80% or so succeed. (Some of this difference will be due to appeals services not representing poor appeals - but even services who represent everyone get >70% usually)

Do I think that the claimant should always be believed - no.
Do I think that the decisionmaker should as a matter of course contact the claimant if there are questions which could go either way - yes.

Do I think that the assessment - whoever does it - should be stretched at least 20 minutes, to give the assessor time to read all the background material, and the prior assessment result - yes.
Should claimants that are not entitled to ESA have a full explanation why - yes.
Should they still be able to access extra help into work - of course.

Do this right, and you can actually save money through having fewer appeals, and not having claimants who will ultimately lose being paid ESA for most of a year while their appeal churns through.

I agree save for the attending medical practitioner is qualified in the same manner as those who treat me (if I claimed).

It's no good sending a Physio to examine and declare my "fitness" , when I am treated by a Professor of Neurosurgery, Pain Management Consultants, Consultant Oncologist, Consultant Urologist, Occupational Therapist.

I would not see it that being seen by a Physiotherapist is appropriate. They could in theory exclude me from many things.

I have my own opinion on long term ill and disabled working, I do, yet my Doctor cannot believe I do. I will not cross that bridge for the sake of this debate.

In summary, anyone examining a person, should be qualified as if they were the person treating them.






Everyone is capable of doing SOME sort of work. There is no one out there incapable.

schrodie

This Upper Tribunal decision certainly shows atos in a negative (but typical light) Here

A telling part of the judgement was this:-

"The claimant was then assessed by an approved disability analyst on 10 January 2012. Somewhat remarkably, considering that the claimant’s problems were entirely mental ones, the disability analyst in question was, as I have noted, a registered physiotherapist, with no apparent professional expertise in mental health matters beyond what she may have gleaned from whatever training she was provided to become a disability analyst. The entire examination took 15 minutes and as usual the analyst had no access to the claimant’s medical records."

The Judge went on to say:-

"I can only express my surprise that in a case where the only issue was the mental health of the claimant and its effect in relation to the mental health descriptors, the report was prepared by a physiotherapist following a 15 minute interview. It is plainly important that questions of mental health should be assessed by a disability analyst with appropriate mental health qualifications if their opinion is to be of any evidential value."

So what's happened to all these so called Mental Health Champions atos are supposed to be using!!!!

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

Everyone is capable of doing SOME sort of work. There is no one out there incapable.

Those in a persistent vegetative state.

dori2o

Brassedoff wrote: »

I agree save for the attending medical practitioner is qualified in the same manner as those who treat me (if I claimed).

It's no good sending a Physio to examine and declare my "fitness" , when I am treated by a Professor of Neurosurgery, Pain Management Consultants, Consultant Oncologist, Consultant Urologist, Occupational Therapist.

I would not see it that being seen by a Physiotherapist is appropriate. They could in theory exclude me from many things.

I have my own opinion on long term ill and disabled working, I do, yet my Doctor cannot believe I do. I will not cross that bridge for the sake of this debate.

In summary, anyone examining a person, should be qualified as if they were the person treating them.






Everyone is capable of doing SOME sort of work. There is no one out there incapable.[/QUOTE]
This phrase is completely pointless when looking at the whole contect of work.

If it was possible for a large number of people to work from hiome than yes, the vast majority of people could be in employment. (and before some bright spark mentions self employment as a homeworker, not everyone has the ability or capability to set up and run their own business)

But being able to work isnvolves much more than just sitting at a desk, looking on a computer, or whatever.

In order to work first of all you have to get there, and for many sick/disabled people this is the barrier that stops them.

Secondly, is the likelyhood of being able to maintian that employment. There are very very few employers who will be willing to accept a new employee who cannot guarantee being able to work from day to day, or in some cases hour to hour, such is the nature and unpredictability of their condition.

Finally, there is the piotential for a persons illness/disability, to be adversely affected by the act of working, or by the stresses involved in working, commuting, etc etc.

So, the statement is false. NOT everyone is capable of working.

Brassedoff

rogerblack wrote: »

Those in a persistent vegetative state.

Stephen Hawings! A man who works full time; he is entirely paralysed and communicates through a speech generating device.

How much more disabled do you wish someone to be?

As I said, virtually everyone is able to do something!

Brassedoff

dori2o wrote: »

Brassedoff wrote: »

I agree save for the attending medical practitioner is qualified in the same manner as those who treat me (if I claimed).

It's no good sending a Physio to examine and declare my "fitness" , when I am treated by a Professor of Neurosurgery, Pain Management Consultants, Consultant Oncologist, Consultant Urologist, Occupational Therapist.

I would not see it that being seen by a Physiotherapist is appropriate. They could in theory exclude me from many things.

I have my own opinion on long term ill and disabled working, I do, yet my Doctor cannot believe I do. I will not cross that bridge for the sake of this debate.

In summary, anyone examining a person, should be qualified as if they were the person treating them.






Everyone is capable of doing SOME sort of work. There is no one out there incapable.[/QUOTE]
This phrase is completely pointless when looking at the whole contect of work.

If it was possible for a large number of people to work from hiome than yes, the vast majority of people could be in employment. (and before some bright spark mentions self employment as a homeworker, not everyone has the ability or capability to set up and run their own business)

But being able to work isnvolves much more than just sitting at a desk, looking on a computer, or whatever.

In order to work first of all you have to get there, and for many sick/disabled people this is the barrier that stops them.

Secondly, is the likelyhood of being able to maintian that employment. There are very very few employers who will be willing to accept a new employee who cannot guarantee being able to work from day to day, or in some cases hour to hour, such is the nature and unpredictability of their condition.

Finally, there is the piotential for a persons illness/disability, to be adversely affected by the act of working, or by the stresses involved in working, commuting, etc etc.

So, the statement is false. NOT everyone is capable of working.

Rubbish, an excuse for those not able to see beyond their benefit claim. My gardener suffers from severe autism. One of those kids who could not be left alone, so the parents got HRM/HRC, a free car for 18 years. As soon as he was old enough, or rather unable to get benefit. He went to college, ok it took him an exta year to get through. Passed his driving test on the 6th time of asking. Set up his own business as a gardener. The lad is serve rely mentally disabled. He managed to set himself up in business. You cannot tell me others cannot.

Why can a person claiming agoraphobia not work from home for someone such as the AA or Thomson Holidays? They are always advertising.

Why cannot someone who claims to have a bad back not do the same?

You see, for the hundreds or thousands who get convinced by the self supporting system of care or charity workers telling people they cannot work, there are cases of people with gumption who try and succeed

I am a case in point. I am typing this from a bed in the front room having worked since 10am this morning. I am tired, I am in pain, but I have the pride of knowing I have earned my money, not sponged it off the tax payer while watching Jeremy Kyle !

Rogerblack thought he had a trump card in a vegetive state, yet Stephen Hawings is easily the most disabled person I know. He is Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge. Now that doesn't sound a part time job!

You just will not accept that nearly everyone can do something. Why is that, does it then highlight other less severe disabilities, conditions or short term and questionable illnesses?