ESA Support group in for a ROUGH ride 2017 (Support group to be CRUSHED!)

gemmaking

The ESA Support group is in for a rough ride with potential changes, which could make it more like the WRAG group,

with getting the people who are in the support group to take activities, or see other therapists etc, and much more.

"Government plans to make many ESA support group claimants undertake work-related activities"

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3568-government-plans-to-make-many-esa-support-group-claimants-undertake-work-related-activities

The government has launched a consultation on changes to the work capability assessment which they say is aimed at putting “an end to the binary ‘can work/can’t work’ groups.” One of the aims of the green paper appears to be to oblige many claimants in the support group to undertake work-related activities.
The government’s green paper proposes a number of measures, including:

• a review of Statutory Sick Pay and GP fit notes to support workers back into their jobs faster, and for longer;

• encouraging Jobcentre Plus work coaches to signpost claimants to therapy;

• the launch of a consultation on Work Capability Assessment reform;

• encouraging employers to work with their employees with long-term health conditions to stop them from falling out of work;

• to extending fit notes from doctors to other healthcare professionals to help ensure people receive more tailored support;

• developing large scale trials on how health-led services and support can help get disabled people and those with long-term conditions back into work – with a specific focus on mental health and musculoskeletal conditions;

• a wide-ranging debate about recognising the value of work as a health outcome.

This will have an affect on the sick people, especially to their mental health.

Do you think this can be overturned with a petition ?

This will cause so much stress and tension to disabled people in the support group, how do you tell them that you are in for a rough ride in 2017?

FBaby

This will cause so much stress and tension to disabled people in the support group, how do you tell them that you are in for a rough ride in 2017?

It's a vicious circle. If people who suffer from stress, and that is the main reason for them being unable to work, isn't reasonable to engage with support to help them to learn to cope with stress in the first place?

Saying that being made to get help with stress is stressful is never going to get them better. Stress in itself is not a bad thing. Everyone at some point of their lives will experience stress and that doing so means you progress through the demands of life, the issue is that some have learned coping mechanisms whilst others haven't, and yet others don't want to.

I don't think it is wrong to expect people signed of for anxiety reasons to be made to attend therapy. The issue is that for it to work, the claimant has to want it to and engage fully. Forcing someone who feels persecuted for doing it and is going to go with the attitude that they won't give it a try because 1/ it will never work or 2/ they don't want to work anyway, is doom to fail and will just be a waste a resources. So how to do you draw the line?

sangie595

gemmaking wrote: »

Do you think this can be overturned with a petition ?

This will cause so much stress and tension to disabled people in the support group, how do you tell them that you are in for a rough ride in 2017?

I sincerely hope not.

I would be at the front of any queue to be suspicious and doubtful of the government, but the key aspects of this consultation (please don't scare-monger - it hasn't been introduced and there is no way any outcome will happen in the next year!) are really great news for people with disabilities. And BTW, we are not disabled people, we are people first and with disabilities second.

In relation to employment opportunities, as a society we treat people with disabilities shabbily. There is absolutely no doubt at all that being in employment has better lifetime health outcomes than being unemployed. There have been many detailed reports on this over decades; and show that people who spend long periods out of work are more likely to be unhealthy and, on average, die ten years before the working population who haven't had lengthy unemployment.

So unpack some of those possibilities:
(a) a review of SSP and fit notes - SSP has not kept up with changes to fit notes and contractual types of sick pay. Phased returns, for example, are impossible under SSP. With SSP you are either sick and not working, or working - there is no mid-point that enables people to go back to work on reduced hours, and yet this is an entirely sensible approach for many workers, whether they have disabilities or not. Similarly, GP's have little idea about the range of options that they could suggest - they have medical training and no specialism in occupational health, so they often tend to err on the side of unfit for work rather than using the existing options to suggest adjustments.

(b) allowing job coaches to signpost to therapy - what is wrong with this? It would be helpful for many people if this went further - diverting some of the cash currently being wasted on unreasonable expectations to support therapy for individuals who would benefit in employment terms, when the NHS is incapable of doing this. Checks and balances would have to be in place to ensure that therapy was voluntary - it's a waste of effort and money if it isn't. But a good thought to explore.

(c) consultation on reforming work capability assessments - so, they don't need reforming? Because most of what I read on this board and see elsewhere suggests they seriously need reforming. And this measure has already been somewhat cautiously welcomes by many charities for disabilities. Reform does not have to mean worsen.

(d) encouraging employers to support workers with long term health conditions - the Equality Act is a wildly useless piece of legislation in respect of disabilities. It is too easy to avoid making reasonable adjustments, and too easy to dismiss on capability grounds - or to make resignation the only option for people. Employers do need better support and advice to help them be better employers in respect of workers with disabilities. But that really only works for the best of them, who are probably already trying to do just that. Bludgeoning the others over the head with much more powerful legislation is what is really needed - but at least this is a start.

(e) extending fit notes to other healthcare professionals is a good idea, as long as it is independent of any benefits system. It already is anyway - nurse practitioners can issue them. I'd like to see occupational and physical therapists given the ability to assess for fit notes too - in many cases they are the best placed people to make such assessments as to work capabilities and adjustments. I'm sure there are others who would be similarly better placed.

(f) I can see no reason why supporting a switch the health led initiatives to support people back to work (or even remain in work) is a bad idea. Health professionals are better placed to do this than work coaches.

(g) as already mentioned, health is very much impacted upon by worklessness - what is wrong with widening the debate about it. We are wasting the resources of many talented people because employers cannot see beyond a diagnosis.

Rather than trying to stop a consultation, people who care passionately about ensuring that all people get the same, or equivalent opportunities, in life should be being part of the consultation and making their voices heard so that it is not dominated by the right wing. A consultation, just because the government have announced it, does not have to be a bad thing. But if the strong and positive voices of people who want to be able to work whilst managing long term health conditions are not heard; or if it is left in the hands of those who think that it will never impact on them because they won't ever have a long term health condition, then the consultation will miss all the chances to do something better than what we have.

pmlindyloo

sangie595 wrote: »

I sincerely hope not.

I would be at the front of any queue to be suspicious and doubtful of the government, but the key aspects of this consultation (please don't scare-monger - it hasn't been introduced and there is no way any outcome will happen in the next year!) are really great news for people with disabilities. And BTW, we are not disabled people, we are people first and with disabilities second.

In relation to employment opportunities, as a society we treat people with disabilities shabbily. There is absolutely no doubt at all that being in employment has better lifetime health outcomes than being unemployed. There have been many detailed reports on this over decades; and show that people who spend long periods out of work are more likely to be unhealthy and, on average, die ten years before the working population who haven't had lengthy unemployment.

So unpack some of those possibilities:
(a) a review of SSP and fit notes - SSP has not kept up with changes to fit notes and contractual types of sick pay. Phased returns, for example, are impossible under SSP. With SSP you are either sick and not working, or working - there is no mid-point that enables people to go back to work on reduced hours, and yet this is an entirely sensible approach for many workers, whether they have disabilities or not. Similarly, GP's have little idea about the range of options that they could suggest - they have medical training and no specialism in occupational health, so they often tend to err on the side of unfit for work rather than using the existing options to suggest adjustments.

(b) allowing job coaches to signpost to therapy - what is wrong with this? It would be helpful for many people if this went further - diverting some of the cash currently being wasted on unreasonable expectations to support therapy for individuals who would benefit in employment terms, when the NHS is incapable of doing this. Checks and balances would have to be in place to ensure that therapy was voluntary - it's a waste of effort and money if it isn't. But a good thought to explore.

(c) consultation on reforming work capability assessments - so, they don't need reforming? Because most of what I read on this board and see elsewhere suggests they seriously need reforming. And this measure has already been somewhat cautiously welcomes by many charities for disabilities. Reform does not have to mean worsen.

(d) encouraging employers to support workers with long term health conditions - the Equality Act is a wildly useless piece of legislation in respect of disabilities. It is too easy to avoid making reasonable adjustments, and too easy to dismiss on capability grounds - or to make resignation the only option for people. Employers do need better support and advice to help them be better employers in respect of workers with disabilities. But that really only works for the best of them, who are probably already trying to do just that. Bludgeoning the others over the head with much more powerful legislation is what is really needed - but at least this is a start.

(e) extending fit notes to other healthcare professionals is a good idea, as long as it is independent of any benefits system. It already is anyway - nurse practitioners can issue them. I'd like to see occupational and physical therapists given the ability to assess for fit notes too - in many cases they are the best placed people to make such assessments as to work capabilities and adjustments. I'm sure there are others who would be similarly better placed.

(f) I can see no reason why supporting a switch the health led initiatives to support people back to work (or even remain in work) is a bad idea. Health professionals are better placed to do this than work coaches.

(g) as already mentioned, health is very much impacted upon by worklessness - what is wrong with widening the debate about it. We are wasting the resources of many talented people because employers cannot see beyond a diagnosis.

Rather than trying to stop a consultation, people who care passionately about ensuring that all people get the same, or equivalent opportunities, in life should be being part of the consultation and making their voices heard so that it is not dominated by the right wing. A consultation, just because the government have announced it, does not have to be a bad thing. But if the strong and positive voices of people who want to be able to work whilst managing long term health conditions are not heard; or if it is left in the hands of those who think that it will never impact on them because they won't ever have a long term health condition, then the consultation will miss all the chances to do something better than what we have.

An excellent post.

The Support group descriptors are seriously flawed and, in my experience there are some people who are in the Support Group that could work with the right support. At the moment it seems many of them get into the support group and then...nothing, they remain on benefits for the rest of their lives.

BUT
Although agreeing with the premise, the fear is that all the other support/therapy/job opportunities will just not materialise to enable people with disabilities to return to work.

And then what will happen? People will be forced to attend these work activities with no realistic expectation of either receiving therapy or a job.

And who will make the decision as to who can benefit from this and who can't? we all know that the current system of assessors, whether for ESA or PIP is seriously flawed. Unless we have properly trained people then this would end badly. Everyone would be lumped together and there may be much misery caused.

Personally I believe that this is being tackled the wrong way round. There has to be a serious input of money for services for those with mental health problems. Too many people receive little or no help at the moment. This is, I believe, the group that would find it most difficult to cope if changes were made.

Then there has to be some incentive for employers to support employees with disabilities. This could be a financial incentive or legislation. It was done with positive discrimination (if I recall correctly) so why not for those with disabilities?

Sorry, I am rambling

Will stop now and give others a chance!

sangie595

pmlindyloo wrote: »

An excellent post.

The Support group descriptors are seriously flawed and, in my experience there are some people who are in the Support Group that could work with the right support. At the moment it seems many of them get into the support group and then...nothing, they remain on benefits for the rest of their lives.

BUT
Although agreeing with the premise, the fear is that all the other support/therapy/job opportunities will just not materialise to enable people with disabilities to return to work.

And then what will happen? People will be forced to attend these work activities with no realistic expectation of either receiving therapy or a job.

And who will make the decision as to who can benefit from this and who can't? we all know that the current system of assessors, whether for ESA or PIP is seriously flawed. Unless we have properly trained people then this would end badly. Everyone would be lumped together and there may be much misery caused.

Personally I believe that this is being tackled the wrong way round. There has to be a serious input of money for services for those with mental health problems. Too many people receive little or no help at the moment. This is, I believe, the group that would find it most difficult to cope if changes were made.

Then there has to be some incentive for employers to support employees with disabilities. This could be a financial incentive or legislation. It was done with positive discrimination (if I recall correctly) so why not for those with disabilities?

Sorry, I am rambling

Will stop now and give others a chance!

Not rambling, and I agree. But the problem is that people are being lumped in together already, and that is causing misery. All your points are very valid - but they are existing problems with the system too. So the system needs fixing. I worry that this won't fix it - but if we don't get involved and put in our ideas, and fight for them, it won't ever be fixed. And it would be a tragedy to let the debate be shaped by those who think that disability is faked, just because one or two people have indeed faked it. Because, that is what that reference to especially looking at mental ill health and musculoskeletal conditions is about. The two sets of disabilities most often faked. And before anyone jumps on me for saying that, I'm not saying people don't have those disabilities (i'm one of them!). But it is dishonest to say that we don't recognise how easy they are to fake, and that action diminishes all the genuine people.

fishybusiness

A well though out post sangie, I think practice is likely somewhat different to theory.

Consider the idea that healthcare professionals can get in on the act of signposting, or deciding fitness for work. We already have this process for PIP and what an unfair, seemingly unregulated and biased system is has been shown to be. More than 50% of appeals upheld.

If the government were to move forward in the way you suggest it ought, regulation would be key, but if healthcare professionals were to regulate themselves, as they should, many many people would be signposted for help, be it therapy, scaffolding support, financial guidance or anything else they may need to get back to work. Financial implications would massive, likely beyond any given budget.

Cue the government, reduce spend and get those people back to work. Follow that premise and it wouldn't be long before the 'new' system would be given targets and rules reducing the support for those that so obviously need it.

That is the more likely reality.

A person with a health problem could need massive amounts of support in the early stages of employment. I speak from experience of being the 'supporter', and giving support to my partner going in to work, in our own business and everyday problems that come up. It is almost like mentoring, which I agree with, but can regular businesses really give the time and space required to support a new worker?

Sixer

Problems would seem to be:

How independent would any therapy actually be?

What, in the way of duties, would be imposed on existing employers to enable any resulting regime?

As an example, I have a friend who suffers from severe cyclical depression and consequential anxiety. She works for a national company well known to be progressive and with a good reputation for extending workers rights over and above statutory minimums. She is treated as usual by her GP but, at work, has an occupational therapist who she sees on yearly basis or whenever she becomes unwell, and who advises the employer whether she is currently capable of normal work, should be put on light duties, or should be signed off sick.

This works well. She's maintained the same job through several periods of serious illness, which works for her even though she is probably handicapped for promotion possibilities because of her health instability. But she hasn't needed any benefits aside from a couple of periods of SSP and her usual small tax credits entitlement.

But how many companies in the UK have either the infrastructure or the will to implement this kind of support? And without employer involvement, all the fine words involved in initiatives like this will simply result in more draconian coercion of people already less able to cope with it.

Bogalot

Sixer wrote: »

Problems would seem to be:

How independent would any therapy actually be?

What, in the way of duties, would be imposed on existing employers to enable any resulting regime?

As an example, I have a friend who suffers from severe cyclical depression and consequential anxiety. She works for a national company well known to be progressive and with a good reputation for extending workers rights over and above statutory minimums. She is treated as usual by her GP but, at work, has an occupational therapist who she sees on yearly basis or whenever she becomes unwell, and who advises the employer whether she is currently capable of normal work, should be put on light duties, or should be signed off sick.

This works well. She's maintained the same job through several periods of serious illness, which works for her even though she is probably handicapped for promotion possibilities because of her health instability. But she hasn't needed any benefits aside from a couple of periods of SSP and her usual small tax credits entitlement.

But how many companies in the UK have either the infrastructure or the will to implement this kind of support? And without employer involvement, all the fine words involved in initiatives like this will simply result in more draconian coercion of people already less able to cope with it.

That level of support should not be beyond any employer, and would fall within the requirement to provide reasonable adjustments. What they are providing would provide more benefit to the business than cost, it's far more beneficial to have a long term employee with an occasional absence than a high turnover of staff who move on for feeling unvalued.

What your example highlights is a need for better understanding of the true costs of employing disabled people. The average cost of reasonable adjustments is less than £100 per year (I can search out the research on that point if needed), which is far outweighed by the benefits of employee loyalty. What we essentially need is a change in perception, from one of disability to ability, what the person can do rather than what they cannot.

TELLIT01

I've always supported the idea behind ESA, which was that those who could work, should work, and not be effectively dumped on the scrapheap as was basically the situation with Incapacity Benefit. The problem has been the way it ended up being implemented at the depth of a recession. The vast majority of employers always have, and always will, prefer to employ people who don't have health issues, and in a world with unemployment that basically means it's going to be exceptionally difficulty for that group of people to find employment.
If the changes are implemented 'in the round', with all elements included it could be a positive change. If as is more likely, certainly elements (those with minimal cost) are retained and the rest dumped, it will end up with another mess.

sangie595

Bogalot wrote: »

What your example highlights is a need for better understanding of the true costs of employing disabled people. .

And in comparison to "healthy employees" too! The assumption is that healthy employees are more valuable because they work harder and are absent less etc. That simply isn't a reasonable assumption. Healthy workers get sick and may, in fact, have more sickness absence than people with disabilities. Healthy workers skive. Healthy workers claim they are sick when they are actually at an interview (judging by the number of posters on the employment boards who suggest this!).Healthy workers may put less in to retaining their employment because they don't see that as being something they need to do. And a definition of what a "healthy worker" is might be an interesting exercise - not having a disability does not mean you don't need "reasonable adjustments" - maternity leave; paternity leave; flexible working; days off for sick children, parents and grandparents; bereavement leave; and so on. And that is before you start of the physical adjustments to work and workspace required by people with conditions that don't qualify as a disability but who still need help - I am the only person with a disability in our office, but judging by the number of sit/stand desks for bad backs, chairs for different degrees of comfort, etc., etc., you would think that it was a convention of people with disabilities. But that is because our employer takes health and safety seriously, and so reasonable adjustments are for everyone, not just for people with disabilities.

fishybusiness

But that is because our employer takes health and safety seriously, and so reasonable adjustments are for everyone, not just for people with disabilities.

It is not just about adjustments to a working environment that is important.

Many of the people claiming ESA are longer term unemployed, or maybe never have been employed successfully.

Any government initiative will have to deal with many issues with getting people in to work and keeping them there. At times it will be against their will, and 'managing' that process takes time and money, plus fairly close contact with each new employee. That's where the money is likely to be spent.