Government and Insurance companies - establishing the BPS model

"
Why did disability charity United Response appoint a private health insurance boss as chair?

“The WCA is, at least nominally, based on the biopsychosocial model developed by George Engel. He wanted to broaden the way people think about illness, taking into account not only biological factors but psychological and social influences as well.

“The theory forms the basis of the system of insurance claims management adopted by US giant Unum when its bosses realised that their profits were being threatened by falling interest rates – meaning the company’s investments were losing value – and a rise in claims for “subjective illnesses” which had no clear biological markers – Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain, Multiple Sclerosis, Lyme Disease, even Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

“The new test aggressively disputed whether the claimant was ill, questioning illnesses that were “self-reported”, labelling some disabling conditions as “psychological”, and playing up the “subjective” nature of “mental” and “nervous” claims. The thinking behind it was: Sickness is temporary. Illness is a behaviour – all the things that people say and do that express and communicate their feelings of being unwell. The degree of this behaviour is dependent on the attitudes and beliefs of the individual, as well as the social context and culture. Illness is a personal choice. In other words: “It’s all in the mind; these people are fit to work.” (as I mentioned in When big business dabbles with welfare; a cautionary tale)
Click to expand...

"A disability charity’s decision to choose as its new chair the head of a company closely linked with the government’s hated “fitness for work” test has been branded “a betrayal” of disabled people and “a truly disgraceful appointment”."

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018...int-a-private-health-insurance-boss-as-chair/
 
I just stumbled across this UK person - Mo Stewart - described by another as: ...research is instrumental in disclosing Unum’s involvement in British welfare programs seeking to abolish disability benefits by introducing the concept of “risk management” thereby limiting benefits to which UK citizens...

Mo Stewart -
https://www.mostewartresearch.co.uk/
independent research identifying the influence of corporate America with British social welfare reforms
 
Looking at the BPS approach's omnipresence with regard to sociomedical issues (especially pension scheme and rehab related, also for "organic" illnesses), and searching for any sensible application of an BPS approach in the medical world, I finally came across the WHO's BPS belief system -- it's "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health" (ICF): http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icf_more/en/

The ICF is...
a classification of health and health-related domains. As the functioning and disability of an individual occurs in a context, ICF also includes a list of environmental factors.
Click to expand...

Since 2001, ICF has been demonstrating a broader, more modern view of the concepts of “health” and “disability” through the acknowledgement that every human being may experience some degree of disability in their life through a change in health or in environment. Disability is a universal human experience, sometimes permanent, sometimes transient. It is not something restricted to a small part of the population.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, ICF looks beyond the idea of a purely medical or biological conceptualization of dysfunction, taking into account the other critical aspects of disability. This allows for the impact of the environment and other contextual factors on the functioning of an individual or a population to be considered, analyzed, and recorded.
Click to expand...

The following idea appears particularly worrisome to me: Focusing on impact, ICF is believed to create...
a foundation and a common framework allowing all conditions to be compared using a common metric - the impact on the functioning of the individual.
Click to expand...
[bolding mine]

IMO, this is hubris.

I don't know how to pursue this topic, and am not able to discuss this ATM. Just thought this could be interesting for this thread -- it's the WHO, of all organizations --, and wanted to leave this here for more capable forum members.

(Please feel free to move this post if too off-topic).
 
OFF THE PACE: CMIs, BPS, PACE, GUIDELINES and CONSEQUENCES - Malcolm Hooper (2017)

"
BioPsychoSocial, BPS, model/theory/paradigm
This model developed in the 1970s as a response to the perception in psychiatry that there was a large and growing gulf between psychiatry, mental health and science-based biomedicine that has been successful in developing effective treatments for many serious life threatening and fatal illnesses previously assigned a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis, e.g. Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis etc.

Miles and Shands, 1959 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model provides a useful article. Criticism of the BPS is long standing and voiced by eminent psychiatrists. This is an area of current controversy but the overall view emerging is that the BPS theory has “run its day”,
“The BPS model has failed to achieve what it set out to achieve …. more and more commentators are speaking about it critically, calling for an alternative”, Bennining, 2015, Ghaemi, 2009, 2011.

Others regard the model as having no sound foundation in any theory, McLaren, 2001 equates it with fraud. Others see it as anti humanistic, Ghaemi cited above."

“The biopsychosocial model has played a significant role in shaping the UK government's approach to disability and welfare over the last two decades, yet some important claims made about the value and benefits of biopsychosocial approaches have been based upon poor quality evidence and misleading claims.

Even as awareness of these problems grows, many aspects of the biopsychosocial model are so advantageous to those wishing to justify cuts to state disability benefits that they are unlikely to be abandoned. " Faulkner, 2016

"The BPS model/conception/theory was introduced to move away from a perceived, rigid and mechanistic scientific approach to the treatment of mental health and was then extended by some psychiatrists.
The ‘Wessely School’, in the UK, began to claim that this theory could apply to other conditions that were clearly different from mental health disorders, Wessely et al.,1999."

"The terminology of the ‘Wessely School” psychiatrists has generated a number of
“acronyms of ignorance”, including MUS, multiple unexplained symptoms, PUPS, persistent unexplained physical symptoms, MUPS, multiple unexplained physical symptoms, PUS, persistent unexplained physical symptoms."

full paper here:
https://aonm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OFF-THE-PACE-etc-FNL.pdf

(not sure I agree with or understand all that he says but makes some good points).
 
Thank you @Sly Saint for posting this excellent thirty year retrospective by Margaret Williams.

Some reasons why we have to look back at the damage that has been done:

We don't want this to happen again.

Although crumbling, erroneous BPS movement theories still have a strong hold

There has to some sort of public reckoning
 
This should be published in main stream media, is amazing to me that a lot of patients still think the situation is becuase government is ignorant and not the well made plan to avoid disability payments.
This needs to be public and well shared so when they come w some BS talk that We are working with you ( Like Collings from NIH) we as a
Community understand we are being handled, not helped.
 


thanks @JohnTheJack

eta: just wanted to add this photo
Dz3sVBsX4AAIA7g.png
 
Power of Belief Book Launch

Professors Mansel Aylward CB (Director) and Peter Halligan (Associate Director) of the UnumProvident Centre for Psychosocial & Disability Research hosted the launch of their jointly edited book, The Power of Belief, at the Royal Society of Medicine, London, on 19th June.

The book launch, sponsored by Cardiff University, the Arkaga Fund and Elision, was a terrific success with many guests from the fields of academia, health, work & pensions and psychology in attendance.

Speakers included Professor Peter White (Professor of Psychological Medicine, Barts & the London Queen Mary School of Medicine), Professor Christopher French (Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths University), Lord Archie Kirkwood (former Chair of the Work & Pensions Select Committee), Professor Simon Wessley (Professor of Epidemiological & Liaison Psychiatry) and the Rt Reverend David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham.

Talks were given on the power of belief, with many examples of how the senses can be manipulated into believing certain things to be true, and how important the role of belief is in illness diagnosis and perception.

The Power of Belief
Eds. Halligan, P. & Aylward, M. (2006).

https://web.archive.org/web/20060924003320/http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/cpdr/news/indexmain.html#belief

see also:
https://issuu.com/maxhead/docs/sept20bpscardiff/6?ff
 
Thanks for that Sly Saint. I've just been looking at the book on Amazon. Yours for just £72.
The synopsis of the book:

Over the past two decades, a widening gulf has emerged between illness presentation and the adequacy of traditional biomedical explanations. Currently, the UK is experiencing an "epidemic of common health problems" among people in receipt of State incapacity benefits and those who consult their general practitioners. Most do not demonstrate a recognisable pathological or organic basis which would account for the subjective complaints they report. As a result, the causes of many illnesses remain a mystery for both patient and physician, with the result that increasing numbers of people are opting for alternative or complementary medicines. To bridge this gap between illness and its explanation, without abandoning the clear benefits of the biomedical approach, many healthcare professionals have begun to consider a biopsychosocial approach. Central to this approach is the belief that illness is not just the result of discrete pathological processes but involves and can be meaningfully explained in terms of personal, psychological and socio-cultural factors.

In particular, the beliefs held by patients about their health are considered central to the way they behave and respond to treatment. However, such beliefs are not specific to patients only - they can greatly influence the behaviour and reasoning of health professionals as well. Psychosocial influences such as beliefs are also relevant when considering society's views regarding the aetiology of illness, recovery and potential for treatment. At a time when public trust in doctors and science is undoubtedly diminishing, a better understanding of patients' beliefs is clearly a priority for clinical practice and research. "The Power of Belief" brings together a range of experts from neuroscience, rehabilitation and disability medicine and provides a unique account of the role and influence that belief plays in illness manifestation, medical training, promising biopsychosocial interventions and society at large.
Click to expand...

It seems significant to me that a bishop was included in the speakers at the book launch as well as the old familiar faces. It's all about belief, not about science or evidence.

A bunch of privileged, able-bodied men pontificating on what is good for the poor, disabled and sick.

:ill::cry::bawling:
 
Strange that they may not have considered the effect that regular payments from UNUM or Swiss Re might have on ones propensity to hold particular beliefs.

This does tend to support the view that what they were all engaged in was religion rather than science.
 
posted this link on another thread but has relevant info for this thread
http://iacfsme.org/PDFS/Attachment-8-Professor-Simon-Wessely-Award-of-the.aspx

In 2000, the UK WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health at the Institute of
Psychiatry misclassified the disorder as a mental (behavioural) disorder in its “Guide
to Mental Health in Primary Care” by using Wessely’s own material on “CFS/ME”.
The Guide was funded by the Department of Health.

Despite strenuous complaints and despite WHO ICD-10 classifications being mandatory in the UK, sales of the Guide were allowed to continue unabated until almost 30,000 copies had been sold.
Eventually, an erratum was issued but this did not prevent the disorder being wrongly
classified as a mental disorder in the NHS Mental Health Data Manual, nor did it
prevent Ministers of State and Members of Parliament from receiving the impression
that it was the WHO itself (not the WHO Collaborating Centre in the UK) that had reclassified
the disorder as a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
In September 2001 the WHO issued a statement repudiating the unofficial re-classification by the UK Collaborating Centre.

The matter was raised in Parliament on 22 January 2004, where Earl Howe noted the
suggestion that Professor Wessely had “effectively hijacked the WHO logo to give
credence to his own view of ME as a mental illness” (Hansard [Lords] 23 January
2004:Vol 656:No 7:1192). The ME Association Newsletter of March 2004
stated: “The issue mattered because the psychiatrists had stifled access to research
funds for any UK researchers wanting to study organic causes”.
Click to expand...

Undaunted, these Wessely School psychiatrists then asserted that the WHO ICD-10
itself had classified the same disorder in two places, once in the Neurological Section
and also in the Mental (Behavioural) Section. Yet again, their claims were repudiated
by the WHO, who on 23rd January 2004 confirmed: “According to the taxonomic
principles governing ICD-10, it is not permitted for the same condition to be classified
to more than one rubric”. Ministers were forced to correct their own misinformation
and on 11thFebruary 2004 the Health Minister formally confirmed that the correct
classification for the disorder remains neurological.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom