I just happened upon the first post in this thread, which goes back to the proposed removal of the mobilising descriptor from the WCA assessment. Since the new severe conditions group requires that a claimant meets one of the descriptors all the time, this may be one where many people with physical conditions meet the threshold. However, when they merge the assessments, so that PIP becomes in effect 'the new WCA' (the passport to the health element of UC) then they will have effectively removed mobilising from the LCWRA by the back door. This is because they are saying that the health element will require the CARE element of PIP, and have excluded those with just a mobility award.
EDIT: I can't remember where I read this, but they are talking about requiring 'the daily living' element of PIP. It will no doubt be subtly changed from 'requiring a PIP award' to them limiting it to the care side.
Of course, many people with mobilising problems may be more likely to get the care element of PIP than to meet the other LCWRA descriptors, since these are so extreme. But this still won't passport them to the
severe conditions group once the PIP care award replaces the WCA.
Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments, reviews, appeals.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk
Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments, reviews, appeals.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk
When you compare the descriptors of two assessments, then it shows how the PIP care award is unsuitable for assessing a claimant's capacity to work. I suspect this is the ultimate purpose of the 'Timms review', so they can somehow try to combine the two to create another 'severe conditions' group (so they can claim they are not expecting the 'most severe' claimants to work or go through repeated reassessments). Of course, neither the PIP or the WCA have much bearing on a claimant's ability to work in 'the real world' (as opposed to the hypothetical 'modern workplace' or 'the modern world').
I think it's worth getting MPs to understand the potential problems here.
If they simply go for someone having to score an 8 in one of the descriptors it will likely weight it in favour of mental health, as many autistic people, those with depression and anxiety, etc., are able to score highly on this descriptor -
9. Engaging with other people face to face.
- Can engage with other people unaided. 0 points.
- Needs prompting to be able to engage with other people. 2 points.
- Needs social support to be able to engage with other people. 4 points.
- Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either –
- overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant; or
- the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person. 8 points.
I'm autistic with ADHD, I only scored a 4 on this one despite having a Rethink mental health support worker and a council funded advocate with me in my home assessment, because the before and after effects aren't visible during a time limited assessment. I do actually meet the criteria for an 8 as if I am forced to engage with other people in any context, I can't sleep for a few days prior (if it's a planned appointment) and it takes weeks for me to recover. I was actually better when I was younger, it's a fallacy that autistic people can simply learn skills that will last their lifetimes. The accumulation of rejection, bullying, age related illness, autistic burnout etc., all makes things more difficult for many older autistic people. But I think as young people are more likely to have had their autism recognised in childhood now, their difficulties are accepted more by professionals.