Proposed PIP Changes

HillStreetBlues

Spoonie_Turtle said:

I was just saying the specific hypothesised scenario in the OP, scoring 20 made up of all 2point descriptors across the ten activities, would be extremely unusual and I can't think of any condition that would manifestat that way.

I agree it would be very unusual, but  it is possible to have a person on 21 points not have an award and a person on 8 to have one.
One thing is for certain as PIP grades a person's disability by score,  some people with a higher disability will get nothing, yet those with less disability will still get something.

HillStreetBlues

I have no doubt the PIP does need some reform, but it should be done after careful consideration and planning. Sadly all this just about a very quick savings solely for the purpose of getting a fiscal target made against the people least able to fight back.

Muttleythefrog

atlantis187 said:

So let me get my head around this -
before u needed 8 points across all the daily living activities and now you only need 4 points in 1 activity to get an award.

Isn't this seen as a win

No...refer Spoonie's post. To get the DL component you will need total points as before however you will also need to score at least 4 points in at least one of the ten DL activities. Basically they want to target those with broad low level disablement in daily living... typically that may be people with mental illness who require input at low level for to perform many activities.

It's unclear how many will be affected by this change... but later in the month analysis may make clearer the changes proposed in terms of savings/cost.

Albermarle

HillStreetBlues said:

I have no doubt the PIP does need some reform, but it should be done after careful consideration and planning. Sadly all this just about a very quick savings solely for the purpose of getting a fiscal target made against the people least able to fight back.

Welfare cuts will always be painful, and targeting them against the undeserving, ( of which there are many) will inevitably hurt some of the deserving.
As Chris Mason on the BBC said.

Arguments about benefits always revolve around a single concept: fairness.

There are timeless questions – who is deserving and who is not?

It provokes sharp opinions and so is among the sharpest of domestic political decisions a government ever has to make.

Careful consideration and planning can maybe improve the implementation, but in the end can not avoid the harsh reality.

Newly_retired

I wish some consideration could be given to which activities where help is needed are actually likely to cost the claimant more money, ie to the extent that they need to buy aids, adaptations or equipment ( a one-off) or pay for a carer. They could attract more points? It sometimes seems to me that some claimants don't actually need the extra money to pay for care or aids, but simply to help with the cost of living, like everyone else. 

Muttleythefrog

Newly_retired said:

I wish some consideration could be given to which activities where help is needed are actually likely to cost the claimant more money, ie to the extent that they need to buy aids, adaptations or equipment ( a one-off) or pay for a carer. They could attract more points? It sometimes seems to me that some claimants don't actually need the extra money to pay for care or aids, but simply to help with the cost of living, like everyone else. 

Governments will be reluctant to go down that road in any great detail I suspect as it becomes incredibly complex.... and invites debate over the payments actually matching the true costs like of carers which the system simply could never afford. They backed away from previous government ideas on vouchers. The cost of living as such can be more expensive for disabled people... I recently gave example of fact that I am mobile means I can cut our groceries costs to perhaps about 1/4th what they otherwise would be ordering supermarket deliveries... community larder being a significant factor. But things like extra water and electricity can be commonly required by disabled people.. warmer home....restricted/specialist foods... our water usage last year went up to nearly double our perennial norm as I faced major physical health problems including pneumonia and rectal cancer. In upper tribunal discussions over Mobility Activity 1 of PIP I do recall judges trying to (as has happened with other descriptor legal wrangling) make sense of the order of severity of descriptors in relation to the associated costs and support.

Also I would note... the change to PIP criteria (4 points minimum in at least one DL activity added to qualify for DL award) proposed was essentially targeting those with lower level mental health problems potentially broadly affected daily life tasks.. the irony is they could well be among the most money hungry to overcome the disablements as they can invite large amounts of carer input albeit not necessarily of particular special skill. In contrast some of the most obviously significantly disabled may have one off costs of equipment. So a system that dealt with actual costs of overcoming disablement may see someone blind in a wheelchair requiring very little financial and personal help compared to someone with quite moderate depression/anxiety disorders... politically that would sound a difficult path to trod let alone a costly one.

Newly_retired

Yes, the Tories proposed something like this with their voucher scheme. But I was thinking that some descriptors could perhaps be a target for gettting the new 4 point minimum, where inabaility to do the particular task will actually incur costs, compared with some that won't. eg I helped clients with various health conditions who had few costs because they were either too fatigued or lacked motivation to do anything that was likely to likely to cost money.

HillStreetBlues

Albermarle said:

HillStreetBlues said:

I have no doubt the PIP does need some reform, but it should be done after careful consideration and planning. Sadly all this just about a very quick savings solely for the purpose of getting a fiscal target made against the people least able to fight back.

Welfare cuts will always be painful, and targeting them against the undeserving, ( of which there are many) will inevitably hurt some of the deserving.
As Chris Mason on the BBC said.

Arguments about benefits always revolve around a single concept: fairness.

There are timeless questions – who is deserving and who is not?

It provokes sharp opinions and so is among the sharpest of domestic political decisions a government ever has to make.

Careful consideration and planning can maybe improve the implementation, but in the end can not avoid the harsh reality.

I don't disagree with any of  what Chris Mason states. the issue should be fairness, not to save face of a chancellor.

HillStreetBlues

Also not forgetting some households will not only lose PIP but also Carer's allowance.

Beeblebr0x

https://pipinfo.net/activities/making-budgeting-decisions

Many people with learning difficulties would score well on this activity