Proposed PIP Changes

Spoonie_Turtle

MouldyOldDough said:

Any news re the points level to be entitled to "enhanced" PIP ?

ie) If you need 4 points in a single category for standard - they will probably raise the level for "enhanced" too ?

Nothing mentioned about changing points thresholds, just ('just') adding the extra criterion for scoring 4 points from a single descriptor.

Muttleythefrog

MouldyOldDough said:

Any news re the points level to be entitled to "enhanced" PIP ?

ie) If you need 4 points in a single category for standard - they will probably raise the level for "enhanced" too ?

To clarify... the proposed change is to make it a requirement that you get at least one 4 point (or more) scoring descriptor across Daily Living Activities to get any award of Daily Living. 

There has been no talk about point total changes although I had predicted they would do that instead of what they propose.... but they could see the numbers to achieve what they wanted. Seeing those numbers now suggests to me it is a major step towards eliminating standard DL as such a high proportion currently getting it do not get it having scored 4 or more points on any DL activity and my suspicion is the consequence over time will be a much higher level of enhanced awards as claimants fight for them (and 4+ point scoring descriptors). 

HillStreetBlues

Muttleythefrog said:

To clarify... the proposed change is to make it a requirement that you get at least one 4 point (or more) scoring descriptor across Daily Living Activities to get any award of Daily Living. 

There has been no talk about point total changes although I had predicted they would do that instead of what they propose.... but they could see the numbers to achieve what they wanted. Seeing those numbers suggests to me it is a major step towards eliminating standard DL as such a high proportion currently getting it do not get it having scored 4 or more points on any DL activity and my suspicion is the consequence over time will be a much higher level of enhanced awards as claimants fight for them (or 4+ point scoring descriptors). 

I never thought about needing a four pointer before, but with what they trying to do it does make sense than raising the total to a min of 10.  Would be easier to eke out a couple more points than to get one that scores 4

CosmoChic

I know this won't be a popular view, but I've always wondered why PIP isn't a working age only benefit, with an automatic transfer to AA at retirement age?

That would be in line with the automatic move from ESA to State Pension at retirement age.

It would certainly remove the completely unfair two-tier system pensioners currently face - with some on PIP Enhanced(x2) v AA with zero mobility element, when actual conditions/limitations are, very often, identical.

I'm not boomer bashing here, I'm almost a boomer myself.  It's genuinely just something that has always perplexed me.

Spoonie_Turtle

CosmoChic said:

I know this won't be a popular view, but I've always wondered why PIP isn't a working age only benefit, with an automatic transfer to AA at retirement age?

That would be in line with the automatic move from ESA to State Pension at retirement age.

ESA and State Pension are income-replacement benefits though, which PIP is not.

Incidentally pension-age income-related benefits are much more generous than working-age, so it is anomalous that AA has less financial support available than PIP or DLA.

Cyclamen

Cosmo 
I understand your query but my take on it..

PIP is for eligile folk wether working or not because.. the extra costs of being disabled don't go away when someone works.  So it helps level the playing field. A persons disability may also affect earning potential (please note the word may) so the PIP for workers helps with that so its still viable to work.  

PIP having mobility element and AA not having it.  This seems based on the assumption that after a certain age peoples mobility is expected to deteriorate with age related conditions rather than being something that has a longer medical history.  I dont see the logic apart from cost cutting. 

ESA is the out of work option that replaces JSA for thos eout of work. JSA was designed as a short term safety net. Whereas for many the disability preventing working is permanent/ long term so they need a long term substitute with a top up as its not short term they cant go get a job, temp work etc to improve their situation.

Spoonie_Turtle

Cyclamen said:

PIP having mobility element and AA not having it.  This seems based on the assumption that after a certain age peoples mobility is expected to deteriorate with age related conditions rather than being something that has a longer medical history.  I dont see the logic apart from cost cutting. 

To my understanding this is exactly it, and reflected in the fact that for a Blue Badge an older person has to have a specific disability affecting their mobility not 'just' old age (wording paraphrased).  As if older people shouldn't expect to still be able to go out and about just because their bodies are reflecting the effects of time *rolls eyes*

CosmoChic

@Cyclamen and @Spoonie_Turtle

I knew my view wouldn't be popular.  

I suggest it would be in the interests of fairness, particularly now in times where disabled people of all ages are under the cosh. 

Many people gain a Blue Badge without having PIP due to having developed a specific disability post-retirement age.  

If we're not interested in cost-cutting, are we interested in fairness?

Those who become disabled post- retirement age, to the degree they require a Blue Badge, shouldn't they automatically be granted Enhanced Mobility and access to Motability?  In equity with their equally disabled peers who already have this?  With perhaps an assessment of their Daily Living needs once they are eligible for a Blue Badge? 

It seems to me, we have a two-tier system for disabled pensioners.  Those who are the 'correct' type of disabled i.e. who accessed PIP pre-retirement, and those who are the 'lesser' sort of disabled i.e. they became disabled due to the natural ageing process.  The fact is they all have limited mobility, irrespective of when that manifested.

Spoonie_Turtle

CosmoChic said:

…

I suggest it would be in the interests of fairness, particularly now in times where disabled people of all ages are under the cosh. 

Many people gain a Blue Badge without having PIP due to having developed a specific disability post-retirement age.  

If we're not interested in cost-cutting, are we interested in fairness?

… 

It seems to me, we have a two-tier system for disabled pensioners.  Those who are the 'correct' type of disabled i.e. who accessed PIP pre-retirement, and those who are the 'lesser' sort of disabled i.e. they became disabled due to the natural ageing process.  The fact is they all have limited mobility, irrespective of when that manifested.

Completely agree we have an unfair two-tier system for pensioners.  (The remark at the end of my comment I thought made it clear how I feel about the view behind the current policies about older disabled people.)  But the way to correct it would be to add a mobility component to AA, not take it away from people who already have it after pension age.

Of course we know that's not going to happen, but making other people worse off for no reason other than a misguided attempt to be 'fair' is not the answer.  If fairness is treating everyone equally, then fairness is the wrong thing to be aiming for.  Equity - everyone getting what they need - is what we should be holding as the standard.

Muttleythefrog

CosmoChic said:

It seems to me, we have a two-tier system for disabled pensioners.  Those who are the 'correct' type of disabled i.e. who accessed PIP pre-retirement, and those who are the 'lesser' sort of disabled i.e. they became disabled due to the natural ageing process.  The fact is they all have limited mobility, irrespective of when that manifested.

It's a difficult one... I certainly understand the point you're making... and it could be used to remove PIP entitlement post retirement age in future with AA only possible. But the benefits system in terms of logic or fairness is often going to go awry. The recent government proposals on PIP 4+ pointer requirement for Daily Living is a good example... it is targeting those apparently of low level disability yet ironically if you look at the sorts of claimants affected and the descriptors they are going to be triggering it suggest to me a high level of costs in carer support as there can be broad requirement for help with many daily living activities that simple one off costs are not relevant regarding.... so potentially those with higher than typical costs of overcoming disablement in daily life losing entitlement.