UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2023 (including government plans to scrap the work capability assessment)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definition of medical conditions

ICD Group refers to the World Health Organisations’ International Classification of Diseases (2010) Condition Groups. These are sometimes referred to as medical conditions in DWP statistics. For reporting purposes, the conditions as recorded on DWP systems have been mapped to reflect as closely as possible the appropriate ICD10 code. Conditions are based on evidence provided and may not represent a person’s most recent medical condition. Where someone has more than one diagnosis or disabling condition, only the predominant one is reported on in these statistics.

The following abbreviations are used in these statistics.

Abbreviation used in these statistics ICD10 Description
Infectious Diseases Certain Infectious and Parasitic Diseases (A00 - B99)
Neoplasms Neoplasms (C00 - D48)
Blood/Immune System Diseases Diseases of the Blood and Blood forming organs and certain diseases involving the immune mechanism (D50 - D89)
Metabolic Diseases Endocrine, Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases (E00 - E90)
Mental/Behavioural Disorders Mental and Behavioural Disorders (F00 - F99)
Nervous System Diseases Diseases of the Nervous System (G00 - G99)
Visual Impairment Diseases of the Eye and Adnexa (H00 - H59)
Hearing Impairment Diseases of the Ear and Mastoid Process (H60 - H95)
Circulatory Diseases Diseases of the Circulatory System (I00 - I99)
Respiratory Diseases Diseases of the Respiratory System (J00 - J99)
Digestive Diseases Diseases of the Digestive System (K00 - K93)
Skin Diseases Diseases of the Skin and Subcutaneous System (L00 - L99)
Musculoskeletal Diseases Diseases of the Musculoskeletal system and Connective Tissue (M00 - M99)
Genitourinary Diseases Diseases of the Genitourinary System (N00 - N99)
Pregnancy Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Puerperium (O00 - O99)
Perinatal conditions Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period (P00-P96)
Congenital conditions Congenital Malformations, Deformations and Chromosomal Abnormalities (Q00 - Q99)
Not classified elsewhere Symptoms, Signs and Abnormal Clinical and Laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00 - R99)
External causes Injury, Poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (S00 - T98)
External causes External causes of morbidity and mortality (V01-Y98)
Health Services Factors influencing health status and contact with health services (Z00 - Z99)
Unknown Unknown or person without diagnosis on the system
Click to expand...

I wonder if ME/CFS is being accurate1y recorded on the DWP systems?

N.B Quote is from the 1ink -

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...s-to-improve-the-design-of-the-benefit-system
 
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/...y-group-health-and-disability-benefit-receipt

Speaking at a Westminster Hall debate last week, Minister for Disabled People Tom Pursglove confirmed that, as part of its White Paper reforms, the DWP is “testing new initiatives to make it easier to apply for and receive health and disability benefits.”
This includes he said, testing a new severe disability group whereby: “People who are eligible will benefit from a simplified process, and will not need to complete a detailed application form or go through a face-to-face assessment.”

He added that:

  • the policy will be tested on a small scale across a range of health conditions
  • the criteria used for the severe disability group will be based on the impact of a disability or health condition
  • the DWP is looking at those that are lifelong, have a significant effect on day-to-day life and are unlikely to improve.
In terms of testing, the Minister said: “We worked with an expert group of specialist health professionals to draw up a set of draft criteria, which focus on claimants who have conditions that are severely disabling, lifelong and with no realistic prospect of recovery.

“The criteria were shared with several charities, whose feedback was used to develop the criteria further.

“We started initial testing at small scale across a range of health conditions last year, and we plan to augment our testing approach in the coming months to develop our insight and evidence.

“That is a welcome development, which responds to the clear feedback in the Green Paper: people wanted to reduce the assessment burden on those with lifelong conditions that are unlikely to improve.

He added: “This is an important step on that journey. We will continue to move forward in a collaborative way, particularly as we build our understanding and evidence base to scale the policy.”

Referencing other reform, Mr. Pursglove added that: “We are also improving the experience of assessments by testing matching people’s primary health condition to a “specialist assessor”.

“As one part of that test, our assessors will take part in training to specialise in the functional impacts of specific health conditions, so that they can better understand claimants’ needs.”

In order to explore ways of creating a “a personalised welfare system”, Mr Pursglove outlined that the DWP is testing too :

  • “employment and health discussions”, with a “focus on how we can help people overcome barriers to work”.
  • a claimant opt-in rather than opt-out approach to the recording of health and disability benefit assessments.
Ken Butler DR UK’s Welfare Rights and Policy Adviser said: “Any measure that enables those with severe and lifelong conditions to bypass assessment and reassessment is welcome.

“However, it remains to be seen how strict the eligibility criteria will be and the size of any severe disability group is likely be small in size.

What is galling is that the very day after his speech, the DWP announced a work capability assessment consultation aimed at reducing many more of Disabled People eligible for the limited capability for work activity (LCWRA) group.

This includes the proposal to remove the safety net criteria of “substantial risk” to physical or mental health if found not to have a LCWRA.

Inevitably this will lead to many more Disabled people facing work conditionality, sanctions and a reduced rate of benefit.”
Click to expand...

So, did any of out ME charities get invo1ved in this? Somehow I doubt it. As others have mentioned, they focus on the mi1d end of the spectrum who are ab1e to work with adjustments. Moderate and severe sufferers who need the support of state benefits aren't being advocated for in any meaningfu1 way.
 
'This includes the proposal to remove the safety net criteria of “substantial risk” to physical or mental health if found not to have a LCWRA'


The meagre safety nets that were part of the awful WCA (but then only if you knew about them and how to argue your case) are being removed.

The savage sickness benefits 'reforms' from 2010 onwards did not save money for the government. The huge costs of ESA and PIP appeals were greater than the supposed savings. The cruel sanctions were/are just arbitrary punishments. It was all a spiteful charade which gave 'the public' soft target scapegoats.

The new proposals are monstrous.
 
Last edited:
Inhumane disability benefits assessments need reforms
Many assume that it’s easy to get benefits and that everyone just pretends to be disabled so they can lie on the sofa watching daytime TV, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The disability benefits process is a gruelling inhumane system that involves lengthy hard to hard-to-process forms where you have to divulge deeply personal and traumatic information and then a twelve-week wait for the horrendous assessments.

I’ve heard from people who failed assessments because they had clean hair, wore makeup, were seen walking around the centre, and interacted with receptionists.

All of which have nothing to do with their conditions. Friends who were made to attend assessments at centres miles away then penalised for being able to travel that far.

Even though the only reason they put themselves through the stress and pain of travelling that far in the first place was through fear of failing if they couldn’t get there.
Click to expand...
Having been through them myself I know how brutal they can be, I was once denied Employment Support Allowance because I said I could work probably for an hour at a time.

The DWP thought not only would this be enough for me to live on but that anywhere would employ me to work such short hours.

And that’s exactly the problem with the disability benefits assessments and work capability assessments. Stride is claiming too many don't have to look for work, but we’re not looking at how many don’t get that far.

Data uncovered by The Big Issue this week uncovered that the DWP has spent over £750 million in the last decade to fight disabled people who are appealing benefit assessment decisions.

On PIP alone, which isn’t means tested so doesn’t take into account if you can work, the DWP has [spent]over £352 million in the last decade. The Big Issue has estimated that’s enough to pay 39,000 the highest level of PIP for a year.
Click to expand...
Inhumane disability benefits assessments need reforms but not the way Tories think (msn.com)
 
Hello all...

Dispatch from the front line.

I just had a PIP telephone assessment today. This is the second time I've applied for PIP. The first time I was denied initially, denied at the Mandatory Reconsideration and then denied on appeal at Tribunal.

I made a new application in May this year (2023).

I learnt some lessons from my first application. The first time round I recorded the assessment, and more recently (after the tribunal etc) I actually got the recording transcribed.
I compared the transcription with the assessor's notes, and I saw that there were some questionable discrepancies between what I said in the assessment, and some things the assessor wrote in their notes.

For example, I spoke about the range of cognitive and sensory issues & and symptoms that I experience, and the assessor repeated them back to me in the assessment, and wrote most of them down in their notes,
but then at the end of the section wrote "The claimant did not report any cognitive or sensory problems".

They also wrote this:

"Claimant was able to speak clearly on the phone without assistance and tolerated the interview without difficulty.
Claimant was able to give a comprehensive account of their condition without prompting from the assessor or anyone else.
Spoke at a normal volume, rate and with a pleasant tone. Established good rapport.
They were oriented to date, time and place.
Demonstrated good insight"

I assume (though I don't know), that the assessor's assertion (which they did not discuss with me) that I tolerated the interview without difficulty, spoke with a pleasant tone and established good rapport, were points against me.. proof that I don't need assistance etc.

There were some other things as well.

So that was my first telephone assessment, in July 2022. Since then, predictably, my health has very slowly but very surely been declining, probably largely due to the fact that I'm having to keep working and constantly push my body way beyond the safe limits.

So I re-applied in May 2023, and today was the telephone assessment.. This time..

Oh boy.. it was 2hrs & 50m long! I made sure to have a friend on the line as well (that is something you're allowed to do), which was actually massively helpful.
I took two long breaks, which I really needed!
I made sure as often as possible / as often as I could remember, that when the assessor asked me whether or not I could do something, for them to confirm that they were asking whether I could do that thing reliably, safely, repeatedly, and in a reasonable time period.

( Reliably
To be assessed as able to carry out an activity to the level described in a descriptor, a claimant must satisfy the descriptor “reliably”, that is: safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in reasonable time.

Legislation
The meaning of "reliably" is defined in regulations.

Regulation 4(2A) of the main PIP regulations provides -

Where [a claimant's] ability to carry out an activity is assessed, [the claimant] is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if [the claimant] can do so - (a) safely; (b) to an acceptable standard; (c) repeatedly; and (d) within a reasonable time period.
Regulation 4(4) of the main PIP regulations provides -

  1. "safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to [the claimant] or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;
  2. “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed; and
  3. “reasonable time period” means no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity.
Source: Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI.No.377/2013), and regulation 4 of SR.No.217/2016 in Northern Ireland. )


Unsurprisingly, they didn't like this, and eventually got so frustrated that they had a go at me, said I was trying to make their job difficult, complained that the assessment had already taken 1hr30m and there
was still a lot more to do, said that they understood that this was difficult for me, but it was also very difficult for them, and said that if I continued to not give them the information they were looking for, they could decide to abort the assessment, and reschedule it and start it all over again from scratch another day.

At which point my friend stepped in and gave them a bit of a talking to.

I also made sure to make it very clear that the process of doing the assessment, and preparing for it, was damaging and unsafe in itself.

There was this bizarre circular thing going on where they would ask me if I can do something (e.g cook regularly), I would say "no", they would say "why not?", I would say "it's unsafe", they would say "why", I would say "it causes damage to my health, I have to recover, it causes all the symptoms I've been talking about to get worse", and then they would say "which symptom?", and I would say "all of them", and they would say "but which one?", me: "all of them".. etc etc. This happened multiple times.. assessor was getting v frustrated.

Anyway, I recorded the whole thing again, and have sent it off to be transcribed... we'll see what happens this time.
 
josepdelafuente said:
Hello all...

Dispatch from the front line.

I just had a PIP telephone assessment today. This is the second time I've applied for PIP. The first time I was denied initially, denied at the Mandatory Reconsideration and then denied on appeal at Tribunal.

I made a new application in May this year (2023).

I learnt some lessons from my first application. The first time round I recorded the assessment, and more recently (after the tribunal etc) I actually got the recording transcribed.
I compared the transcription with the assessor's notes, and I saw that there were some questionable discrepancies between what I said in the assessment, and some things the assessor wrote in their notes.

For example, I spoke about the range of cognitive and sensory issues & and symptoms that I experience, and the assessor repeated them back to me in the assessment, and wrote most of them down in their notes,
but then at the end of the section wrote "The claimant did not report any cognitive or sensory problems".

They also wrote this:

"Claimant was able to speak clearly on the phone without assistance and tolerated the interview without difficulty.
Claimant was able to give a comprehensive account of their condition without prompting from the assessor or anyone else.
Spoke at a normal volume, rate and with a pleasant tone. Established good rapport.
They were oriented to date, time and place.
Demonstrated good insight"

I assume (though I don't know), that the assessor's assertion (which they did not discuss with me) that I tolerated the interview without difficulty, spoke with a pleasant tone and established good rapport, were points against me.. proof that I don't need assistance etc.

There were some other things as well.

So that was my first telephone assessment, in July 2022. Since then, predictably, my health has very slowly but very surely been declining, probably largely due to the fact that I'm having to keep working and constantly push my body way beyond the safe limits.

So I re-applied in May 2023, and today was the telephone assessment.. This time..

Oh boy.. it was 2hrs & 50m long! I made sure to have a friend on the line as well (that is something you're allowed to do), which was actually massively helpful.
I took two long breaks, which I really needed!
I made sure as often as possible / as often as I could remember, that when the assessor asked me whether or not I could do something, for them to confirm that they were asking whether I could do that thing reliably, safely, repeatedly, and in a reasonable time period.

( Reliably
To be assessed as able to carry out an activity to the level described in a descriptor, a claimant must satisfy the descriptor “reliably”, that is: safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in reasonable time.

Legislation
The meaning of "reliably" is defined in regulations.

Regulation 4(2A) of the main PIP regulations provides -

Where [a claimant's] ability to carry out an activity is assessed, [the claimant] is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if [the claimant] can do so - (a) safely; (b) to an acceptable standard; (c) repeatedly; and (d) within a reasonable time period.
Regulation 4(4) of the main PIP regulations provides -

  1. "safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to [the claimant] or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;
  2. “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed; and
  3. “reasonable time period” means no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity.
Source: Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI.No.377/2013), and regulation 4 of SR.No.217/2016 in Northern Ireland. )


Unsurprisingly, they didn't like this, and eventually got so frustrated that they had a go at me, said I was trying to make their job difficult, complained that the assessment had already taken 1hr30m and there
was still a lot more to do, said that they understood that this was difficult for me, but it was also very difficult for them, and said that if I continued to not give them the information they were looking for, they could decide to abort the assessment, and reschedule it and start it all over again from scratch another day.

At which point my friend stepped in and gave them a bit of a talking to.

I also made sure to make it very clear that the process of doing the assessment, and preparing for it, was damaging and unsafe in itself.

There was this bizarre circular thing going on where they would ask me if I can do something (e.g cook regularly), I would say "no", they would say "why not?", I would say "it's unsafe", they would say "why", I would say "it causes damage to my health, I have to recover, it causes all the symptoms I've been talking about to get worse", and then they would say "which symptom?", and I would say "all of them", and they would say "but which one?", me: "all of them".. etc etc. This happened multiple times.. assessor was getting v frustrated.

Anyway, I recorded the whole thing again, and have sent it off to be transcribed... we'll see what happens this time.
Click to expand...
:hug::hug:
 
I found that attitude @josepdelafuente - they want it answering in a certain way and you have to fit in with that or they get mad. Also found you have to repeat specifics of each symptom for every single question. I hope the outcome is good, its awful going through it i glad you had your friend there for support.
 
I wish you all the best, Josep. It's a nightmare.

There was a whole lot more bad stuff yesterday. I'm not up to linking to it.

I do wonder when they report mental health and musculo/skeletal problems issues as the main reasons for the increase in economic inactivity & sick leave. I don't believe the "unsuitable furniture for working at home" story. Wasn't the DWP coding "CFS" under musculo/skeletal? I think there was a question about it in Parliament & a promise to move it, but I don't know if that's happened.

Delayed treatment due to the pressure on the NHS obviously plays a large part & there's been an upward trajectory in mental illness over several years, & the sharp increase in poverty & poor working conditions will have an impact on that. However the largest impact on global health in the last 3 & a bit years, Covid-19 damage, seems to have almost been disappeared. I wonder if, building on all the existing factors that we are so aware of, this is deliberate policy.
 
I noticed that Benefits and Work are trying to encourage patient charities to submit a response to the WCA consu1tation and are offering free support for them to achieve this -

Disability charities

If you have connections with a disability charity whose users may be affected, ask them to submit a response. It doesn’t have to be very long and if they are worried that they don’t have a good enough understanding of the WCA, tell them about our absolutely free, confidential email consultancy service to help them with their submission.

Whilst individual submissions to the consultation can be anonymous and individuals’ details are always kept confidential, the DWP often publish a list of the organisations that have taken part. It would be good to see as many disability charities as possible in that list.

But time is, deliberately, short. The DWP gave no warning whatsoever that they were dropping this bombshell and have allowed only until 30 October for responses.

So please begin alerting people as quickly and widely as you can.
Click to expand...

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/take-the-worst-case-wca-test

I don't have any contact or membership of any UK ME/CFS charities (due not just to the severity of my ME, but a1so my autism) but if anyone on this forum does, it wou1d be worthwhi1e passing on this message.
 
I don't think people should take Benefits & Work's worst case wca test. It'd be too distressing & the comments includes people who have taken it & wish they hadn't.


  • As things stand, spending on Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit health support is due to rise 13% in real terms – from £25.9 billion in 2023/24 to £29.2 billion in 2027/28 – with over 500,000 more people brought into those benefits, taking the caseload over 3.5 million people.
    • This compares to £15.9 billion being spent on this support in 2013/14.
Well, of course spending will be higher over time, & inflation is extremely high at the moment. The UK also has an aging population & millions have been subject to years of delay in their retirement age, principally affecting women. Instead of having the security of their state pension, those with health problems have had to continue claiming out-of-work benefits or make new claims if health problems have developed after what used to be the retirement age. It's duplicitous of the UK Government not to take in consideration the much greater savings made by the increase in the pension age, not just to public spending in general, but within the same Department.
 
tornandfrayed said:
I don't think people should take Benefits & Work's worst case wca test. It'd be too distressing & the comments includes people who have taken it & wish they hadn't
Click to expand...
I agree, that's why I didn't mention the test in my above post, just the need for our charities to respond to the WCA consu1tation.

Edit - I suspect Benefits and Work created the test part1y to impress upon disabi1ity charities how significant1y some of their members wi11 be affected both by any changes in the WCA test itse1f and a1so what wi11 happen if it is removed comp1ete1y.
 
tornandfrayed said:
It's duplicitous of the UK Government not to take in consideration the much greater savings made by the increase in the pension age, not just to public spending in general, but within the same Department.
Click to expand...

This.

Many of those women will not be receiving £10.5k a year each in pension, and paying in tax and NICs. My neighbour's struggling by on slightly above minimum wage, but she's still chipping in over £2.5k a year.

There are said to be 3.8 million women affected by the age change, and even if only one million of them were contributing the £13k a year my friend is, that's ... not an insignificant amount of money. It's likely that more than a million are still contributing, some of them more than Anne.
 
JemPD said:
Actually i prefer to be prepared so i did take it, but it only confirmed what i already knew
Click to expand...

I did too, but mostly because I hadn't really got my head around the full implications. It made me realise I've probably never had a WCA because they already knew from my DLA assessment that I'd qualify for the support group under the mobility aspect. That would go if the proposals are enacted, and by answering pessimistically, I only scored enough points for LCW.

I doubt the changes would go ahead in their current form, as even if the same government were in power there's always some horse trading during the process of designing, drafting, and enacting new legislation. I hope organisations will take part in the consultation, though; even if they're not able to respond with detailed, legally-informed responses, sheer weight of opposition can make a difference.
 
Simbindi said:
I hadn't read a11 the news posts when I put the initia1 1ink in my above post but there is a more specific 1ink for charities here -

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/free-wca-consultation-support-for-organisations
Click to expand...

I think it’s wonderful that B&W have done this work for charities. I think charities are obligated to work collectively in service of those who depend on them and it makes sense for them to follow the lead of the experts in this area of policy and law the specialists as B&W are. For smaller charities this will be their only opportunity to access such knowledge due to funding limitations. B&W need numbers to back their opposition. So it’s win win.

However it is sad that the charity sector including large well resourced organisations- at times all people in difficulty might access in a moment of personal crisis inflicted by the state- tend to take a passive or reactive stance on these issues.

Charities may support individuals after the fact of such legislation and may write stiff letters on the human costs of these policies and practices of government. But don’t tend to prioritise pro-active campaigns, vigilant monitoring of political and policy developments, spending on legal support, ongoing staff education on this subject, or professional communications on the matter.

But that’s not surprising. Charities are weary of being seen to bite the hand that feeds them or upon whom their charitable status depends. Status as “non-political.” Awkward. Health, disability and social care allocation occurs via policy. Policy is politics.

Unfortunately when clients and client self advocacy groups bring up the charity’s organisational failures to advocate effectively by charities these complaints and concerns are usually met by platitudes and stock answers ‘learning’ ‘on this occasion’ and ‘hands are tied’ ‘can’t do everything’ ‘funding constraints’. Individual workers may go out on limb for their clients but centrally the organisation comes first. This is publicly acknowledged under the premise that the charity may fail many or all clients to a degree but that this is inevitable, without their willingness to make such vast compromises they would not be allowed to exist, and
would help no one. So it’s a little something or a lot of nothing for the client.

Whereas
direct threats to organisational security tends to lead to more meaningful responses. These come only from higher up the power structure. ‘Look after your people but not too well… Not such that they can defend themselves or be defended to our inconvenience.’

With this context in mind. I am worried not enough people in the charity sectors will be ready to listen to this warning. Or to respond with necessary focus and sense of urgency. I do hope that they will.
 
Very depressing comments made at the Conservative conference about sick and disab1ed peop1e not rea11y being too i11 to work.

TRIGGER WARNING - I on1y read these updates myse1f because I want to be prepared for a worse case scenario, but it makes me sick to my stomach.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/n...rmer-sanctions-and-human-beings-freed-by-work

It's not too late to respond
For anyone who doubted that the Conservatives were serious about slashing the work capability assessment to make it much harder to be found to have LCWRA, these speeches should provide absolute certainty.

And, until 30 October, it’s not too late to tell them what you think of their plans by taking part in the consultation.

You can also visit our WCA Changes Latest News page for updates on what's happening to the WCA.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom