So they want to replace PIP/DLA money with vouchers?

[moneyinthebinthatsmrtim]

I don't understand it. It is really worrying me.

This payment helps pay for so many things. I doubt these vouchers would cover that, or give the freedom to shop or buy from where you want or need to.

I included DLA because it's really just the child's version of PIP. Eventually, my profoundly disabled child will be an adult and will have to be on PIP

Is there really any truth in this? I can't see any articles directly quoting Labour or Conservative. I might just be in such a worry that I have missed that bit

Apologies if there is another thread on this too. I am happy to get this one taken off if that's the case

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pip-disability-benefits-plan-rishi-government-critics-b2537209.html

Labours Manifesto is vague.
They have deferred any decisions on PIP and Universal Credit payments until after they are elected.

So. No one knows the answers to your questions I’m afraid, unless Kier Starmer is on mumsnet.

Typical Tory rhetoric.remember when it was single mothers.
It's always look what they're getting that you're not and the worst part people fall for it.
The usual divide and conquer.

@MaryMaryVeryContrary its literally the opposite. It is so hard to get and they are so harsh and slow with the entire thing that the vast majority of disabled people are getting far less than they should be entitled to. My DS is 7. Non-verbal, doubly incontinent, profound learning disabilities and developmental delays. Frequent outbursts of violence and uncontrollable behaviour and needs 2 to 1 supervision 24/7. He isn’t currently entitled to the high rate of payment. To get any payment you have to fill out about 30 pages of documentation and then the wait is about 6 months to hear anything back at all. It’s a total myth that there is misuse - the people abusing the system are the DWP.

Anyone who believes it's loads of money and easy are ill informed.
It's a slow degrading process
100 page form plus back up evidence, four month wait and that folks is how adult disability Scotland rolls and you may still have to deal with UC.
Koala..that's good awful situation you're in my heart goes out to you and your family.
Jess try and stop focusing on what may not happen and hopefully it doesn't.best to all who have suffered at the hands of DWP.

This is less current proposed policy for the GE
More ongoing consultation due to predicted rises in PIP requirements over the next 5years.

This is not scare mongering, it’s current research.
Labour will consider the findings and have deferred all decisions till after the election. In fact it will be once the consultation period is complete.

Just as they will be looking at universal credit and ‘making work pay’ ? but whatever any of this means is anyones guess.

There does need to be a reform of the whole PIP system. The money being wasted on countless reviews for people whose disabilities are life long, and progressive, and should never have to go through stressful reviews, and form filling. Surely once confirmed in writing from a GP, Consultant specialist, that should be enough. The amount of claimants having to go to the tribunal, and their award being upheld, or increased, highlights that there is a fundamental issue with the way the assessments are being carried out, and the conclusions being reached. There does need to be change, but not in the way some would like to propose.

I think the reviews are fairly daft too. My ds is totally dependent and is always going to need a level of care that easily qualifies. I find the process a bit time consuming but know he will get it so not nerve wracking. It seems a waste of time. I think particularly if you have a condition that cannot resolve it would be better if the consultant could tick that box the first time you apply and save all the agro.

sigh. Anyone would think that they would want to cut out unnecessary administration, and expense.🤔

Reviews are needed as some people do become temporarily disabled (such as after an accident or serious illness) and would be eligible for a short period of time then make a recovery.

Reviews are needed as some people do become temporarily disabled (such as after an accident or serious illness) and would be eligible for a short period of time then make a recovery.

SOME reviews are needed. Applying common sense would be the best course of action when it comes to reviews.

Of course sometimes they are needed but often they aren’t.

I have a relative with MND, he rightly gets the higher rate of PIP. What exactly is to be gained from him having yet another review?

Exactly.

Why not have a simple form for consultants to tick, along the lines of:

Does the patient have (tick all that apply)

1. A progressively deteriorating and incurable illness or disability?
2. An incurable illness or disability?
3. A life-limiting permanent illness or disability?
4. An illness or disability which, with medical treatments or therapies, may improve? (If 'yes', please state (a) whether the patient is currently able to access these treatments and therapies or not; (b) whether the patient is on a waiting list for further assessments, treatments or/or therapies, and how long these waits will be estimated to be; (c) whether the patient is likely to deteriorate to any degree while waiting for treatment.)
5. An illness or disability which is likely to improve? (If 'yes', please give expected time estimate)
6. A severe injury which will improve? (If 'yes', please give time estimate)
7. A moderate injury which will improve? (If 'yes', please give time estimate)
8. A minor injury which will improve? (If 'yes', please give time estimate)

Categories 1-3 can be separated out from the get-go and treated as potential ongoing, light-touch awards, assessed on the papers.

(That's probably a crap list ^^ but hopefully you catch my drift!)

Some of those suggestions are good@AutumnCrow . And should be on those forms already, negating the need for repeat reviews, once the initial assessment has been done. They should have you on the board, when they look to review the whole system😊.

You're not disabled if your condition is likely to last for less than two years.

Not all of us are under consultants though. I have long term hearing difficulties. There's no cure or treatment. It was "here's your diagnoses off you go"

Agreed, absolutely. This is an issue that the PIP regime needs to tackle now, I think.

I made the point in my consultation response that the guidance to claimants on evidence that the claimant must obtain and provide is far from clear, particularly if their 'care' is being held at nurse, technician and/or junior doctor level (as it now commonly is), and the assessors and decision makers want to see consultants' letters and reports. The DWP should be spelling this out, and indicating how claimants access this quality of treatment and paperwork through the NHS - or accept evidence from non-consultants. Assessors are currently inconsistent on this. I am concerned any 'new PIP' system will make the burden of paperwork worse for patients, consultants, the tribunal system and the DWP.

I haven't seen a consultant audiologist for many years. Last year, in advance of my pending review, I got a copy of my notes from audiology. I then explained the notes to the assessor in my PIP review (written and then verbal). Having previously scored zero points in this area, I really jumped up the scoreboard of disability.

Apols for any incoherence ^^

It's one year. There are exceptions to this such as terminal illness

Well I’m pretty sure that if you’ve lost a limb, you won’t make a recovery (don’t laugh, some amputees have been asked if they think it will get better 😵‍💫😵‍💫).
My illness has a 5% recovery rate within 5 years. I’ve been ill more than 15 years. I’m not going to recover.
etc…
A lot of illnesses do not need a review.

The problem (for the government) with less reviews is that it would remove opportunities to deny PIP.

Like a friend of mine who contacted them because she finally got a diagnosis BUT no change in her condition and they told her she wasn’t entitled anymore.
Or when you have a review and with a same condition/ability, someone suddenly decides you don’t need any support at all.

So many people then give up or dint go to tribunal.
And there us the fact that if you go through tribunal, the next time you need to submit a new claim altogether.

And that is where we need flex in the system. You can have someone disabled (under the equality act this is someone with a condition that has a "substantial and long term adverse effect on your ability to do day to day activities". A cancer patient (in the ideal situation) will get well again and resume normal life but for the duration of their illness more than fulfil the criteria for being disabled. Until a person has the "permanent" or "life limiting" or "terminal" or "congenital" label added to their condition it's only fair they are reviewed at appropriate intervals.

How do you know I haven't lost a limb?

I’m not sure it matters?
My comment was a general one about why regular reviews are not always necessary. Because as you said some stuff is permanent. Like being an amputee.

It wasn’t about you as a person.

A cancer patient is legally classed as disabled from point of diagnosis for life.

When did that change?

Even those with cancers that, once it's removed are cured? That seems daft.