Author Archives: The Hardest Hit

Myths about DLA and PIP

Posted on by
7

Today is the start of the national roll-out of Personal Independence Payments. All new claims for DLA/PIP will be for PIP from now on. Given the DWP’s emphasis on the need for PIP, it seemed timely to summarise some of the main facts (and myths) about PIP. More can be found on our most recent Mythbuster report.

Increased expenditure on DLA.

  • Each year, DLA claims have increased by a smaller amount than the increase in the previous year.
  • Part of the increase in DLA caseload is because the population is growing each year; assuming the same proportion of disabled people, this means there are more disabled people each year.
  • Part of the increase in DLA caseload is because increasing numbers of pensioners are becoming eligible for DLA.
  • Claims for DLA increased between February and May 2012. This was entirely due to increases in children and pensioners receiving DLA; working-age (16-64) claims fell during this period.[1]

 

“The DWP uses the concept of “receipt per head” to sort out different types of increase. They  use a data set that only goes back to 2002/3, but they helpfully provide “aligned” figures back to 1992 in a separate file. Between 2002/3 and 2010/11, total growth of DLA was 29%, but total growth due to changes in “receipt per head” was 21% and part of this is due to a “maturing” effect.

DLA can’t be claimed after the age of 65, but people who were receiving it before then continue for as long as they need it; this means that, in 1992, the oldest recipient was 65, but now there are people aged up to 84 getting DLA – another reason for the growth in claims. If people over 65 are excluded, the total increase in the numbers is 23% and total growth due to changes in “receipt per head” was 16%. …

Until recently, governments have gone out of their way to make sure that disabled children can qualify for DLA; one of the best things the last government did was, in 2001, to extend the number of severely disabled children who qualified for the care component. Families with disabled children have substantial extra costs and are more likely than other families to be poor. It would be a tremendous shame if the current government plans to reverse this policy intent. (Their benefits are currently threatened by Universal Credit: see Sam Royston’s post for more details.)”

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/08/why-are-there-more-dla-claimants

 “In reference to rising costs in disability payments, David Turner says that, “The escalating cost of welfare is a real political challenge. However, this is the result of a rising population of disabled people due to higher survival rates rather than mounting fraud. It will remain difficult for the government to get its message across that reforms are intended to help the most vulnerable when media perceptions of the most vulnerable types reinforce negative stereotypes.”[2]

The government has said that, “In just eight years the number claiming the benefit [DLA]has risen from around 2.5 million to nearly 3.2 million—an increase of nearly 30%.[3]”  However 36% of this growth was from the increase in numbers of pensioners receiving DLA.[4]  There has also been a large increase in children and young teenagers receiving DLA.[5]  Neither pensioners nor children and young teenagers will be affected by the changes to DLA that the government is bringing in. 

For DLA claims based on physical health, all of the increase since 2002 can be based on the increase in overall population size plus the demographic change with increasing numbers of pensioners becoming eligible each year.  The rest of the increase in claims since then is due to increased numbers of claimants with mental health issues or learning difficulties.[6]  This matches the increasing prevalence of severe mental health issues and learning difficulties in all developed countries, and cannot therefore be attributed purely to any inappropriate loosening of criteria.”

Extract from “Why We’re Not Benefit Scroungers,” Aida Aleksia

 Cutting the DLA budget

By comparing the 2009 figure with the 2015 figure, the DWP is able to say that DLA is not being cut.

David Cameron said that, “In 2009-10, the money spent on disability living allowance was £12.4 billion. By 2015 it will be £13.3 billion. There is no cut in the money going to the disabled.”

  • “But Cameron failed to tell MPs that forecasted spending on DLA this year, 2012-13, is £13.6 billion. This means – according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ own figures – that spending on DLA will fall over the next two years.”[7]
  • “450,000 disabled people will have no disability benefit entitlement at all and 510,000 disabled people will have a reduced award.”[8]
  • “The higher rate mobility criteria was slashed from 50 metres to 20 metres without consultation or warning with the consequence that once PIP has been fully implemented, in 2018, up to 428,000 fewer people will qualify for the enhanced mobility element which provides eligibility to lease cars using the Motability scheme . This is now the subject of a legal challenge.”[9]

 

Consulting with disabled people

  • The abolition of working age DLA was announced in the emergency budget of 2010. There was no consultation with disabled people or groups prior to the announcement.
  • The DWP ignored the majority of responses to the consultation on Disability Living Allowance, which were opposed to the DWP’s proposals. Only 7% of responses fully supported the DWP. [10]

Claiming DLA

  • 84% of decisions use additional evidence from GPs, consultants, hospitals and others who provide care, support and treatment, or from a medical assessment with the company Atos.
  • There have always been random checks and reviews of DLA, so that people do not continue on DLA for many years without reassessment.

[2] David M Turner, February 2012, ‘Fraudulent’ disability in historical perspective, History and Policy

[4] Pensioners only receive DLA if they were receiving DLA before retirement.  If a person becomes chronically ill or disabled after retirement then that person claims Attendance Allowance, not DLA.

[6] Campbell, Marsh, Franklin, Gaffney, Dixon, James, Barnett-Cormack, Fon-James, Willis, 2012, Responsible Reform

[9] Ibid.

ESA, WCA and the Telegraph

Posted on by
3

Hardest Hit was pleased to see Isabel Hardman’s piece in the Telegraph on ESA. Ms Hardman wrote to explain that, “Disability testing isn’t working as it should – and Conservatives must have the courage to admit it.” This is an encouraging stance from a right-leaning newspaper and could become the start of increased accuracy in the debate around welfare.

When one knows most of the facts around an issue, it is easy to pick out the misleading from the less misleading newspaper articles. Newspapers don’t routinely cite the sources of their data, which can make fact-checking difficult. If one already knows the facts, this stage is automatically much easier. Knowing ESA as I do, it is refreshing to read an article that is not misleading in either direction.

The Work Capability Assessment for ESA has come under a lot of criticism. As we know, and Ms Hardman points out, 42% of appeals against ESA are successful.[1] Other information exists supporting the claim that the ESA assessment process is inaccurate. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau has reported high levels of inaccuracy in reports made by Atos assessors.[2] Tribunals report that most appeals are overturned due to new oral evidence presented to the tribunal – that is, evidence that would have been available to the Atos assessor had he or she asked the right question(s).[3] The independent Review, headed by Professor Harrington, has said that Decision Makers’ decisions vary in quality and consistency.[4]

The National Audit Office said that there are “serious questions about the quality of the overall decision-making process.”[5] A court judgement on Wednesday ruled that the current system is unreasonable to people with mental health conditions.

There are many reasons to believe that the ESA assessment process does not work; these are just some of the outcome data that suggest flaws in the decision-making process. As Ms Hardman says, the method of assessment is also unreliable. “It fails to assess, beyond someone’s ability to move a cardboard box in the test room, whether they are capable of doing a real job. The activities in the test are removed from workplace realities. … There are some simple changes that could improve the test, although they are unlikely to remedy the inherent flaw: the fact that it doesn’t realistically assess a person’s ability to do a day-to-day job.” Unfortunately, a real-world test – realistically assessing a person’s ability to do a day-to-day job – was the one thing that then Minister for Employment Chris Grayling was “absolutely unreservedly and implacably opposed to.”[6] Incorporating a real-world test has since been rejected on the grounds that there is a lack of “clear, evidence based advice” for what such a test might look like.[7] This “inherent flaw,” which most disabled organisations agree to be a flaw, appears set to remain.

Despite this, there are possibilities for improvement to the ESA assessment process. There could be more time for both the claimant and Atos to request and receive medical evidence; the questions asked of the claimant could be more relevant to the ability to work; the claimant could be provided with more space and time to fully explain the impact their condition(s) has. Other small, or less small, improvements could be made without first radically over-hauling ESA to include a real-world test.

There doesn’t have to be a public collapse of faith in these tests. Although Hardest Hit amongst others may feel that the collapse of faith should already have occurred, the fact that it hasn’t means there is still time for the Coalition government to get ESA right. It is vitally important: it is not just that this “distresses people who deserve better,” but that it drives into poverty and worsened health people who deserve full support. A catastrophe in the welfare reform may well “be enough to prevent any government looking at welfare reform for another generation,” so the Coalition must get this right.

There is potential for great harm, but there is also potential for great good. It is for us to ensure that everyone knows both what is wrong and what can be done right, to ensure justice for all the sick and disabled of this country.

[2] Right First Time, 2012, Citizen’s Advice Bureau

[3] Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearings: Early analysis of appeals allowed from pilot data, Nov 2012, DWP

[4] Professor Harrington, An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – year two, Nov 2011

[5] 23rd Report; Contract management of contract services, Feb 2013, National Audit Office

[6] Work and Pensions Committee hears from Chris Grayling on migration to employment and support allowance, June 2011

[7] Professor Harrington, An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – year two, Nov 2011

Myth busting: facts and figures (Update from previous myth buster).

Posted on by
13

A lot of myths, untruths and exaggerations are being peddled on the issue of disability benefits, particularly Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

Here we set the record straight on some of the most regularly used myths for targeting cuts at disabled people support, some of which have been most recently given an airing by the Prime Minister himself:

“The fact is that we are not cutting the money that is going into disability benefits. The question is how best to reform those disability benefits so that disabled people actually get access to the benefits that they require. The reform has been led by many of the disability groups, which want to see something that is much more related to people’s disability and faster to access, too.” David Cameron, 12 September 2012 Continue reading →

DBC report shows how Atos and Capita will deliver PIP assessment

Posted on by
10

A new report published today by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) raises concerns about the delivery of the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment. People can make new claims for PIP in a few pilot areas from next week and, once fully rolled-out, the benefit will replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

The assessments for PIP will be delivered by different companies in different areas, with the contracts split between Atos Healthcare, who already deliver the controversial Work Capability Assessments (WCAs), and Capita.

The DBC presented both providers with a list of ten pledges for a fair and effective assessment, based on the concerns voiced by those they represent. Both companies have detailed how they will try to meet each pledge, revealing stark differences between providers. For example, Capita will try to ensure applicants with certain conditions will be matched with assessors who have specific expertise in that area, which the DBC believes will lead to fairer outcomes, whereas Atos will randomly assign assessors. Continue reading →

Disability benefit reforms: ‘It’s about more than the cuts, and more than the Paralympics’

Posted on by
27

The disability movement is at a crossroads as a raft of controversial new benefit reforms is introduced. The Guardian newspaper recently asked charities, campaigners and social media activists what happens next. A range of influential figures responded including Steve Winyard, co-chair of the Hardest Hit coalition.

The lack of obvious leaders is a big concern for disability politics – we need disabled people themselves in those visible positions. It would be great if “bedactivists” such as Sue Marsh and Kaliya Franklin could be among those leaders.

The idea of Hardest Hit is that if there’s genuinely going to be a disability movement, charities and disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) have to work together with a united voice. I don’t think we impact on the government significantly in smaller groups, but there’s an enormous tendency to fragment, mainly because the charities aren’t run by disabled people.

Although charities are changing – the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) is now a DPO – it’s still hard for some DPOs to accept these changes have taken place. In campaigning, we need to focus very strongly on government and parliament, and get politicians from all parties to understand the devastating impact the work capability assessment (WCA) and the Welfare Reform Act are having on people’s lives.

We plan to have a much stronger presence at the party conferences this year. More charities will cover costs for disabled people to attend, to ensure that MPs and other delegates hear their voices.

Steve Winyard
Head of policy and campaigns, RNIB and co-chair, Hardest Hit coalition

Read all responses published as part of this Guardian feature.