Failure of early intervention and timely treatments impacts the individual and their family first and then the state who should be footing the bill for the long lasting economic damage their policies have caused. But previous investment delays impact.
Now the impact of previous lack of investment is impacting on government spending elsewhere.
The state (of whatever government is elected to rule) are not willing to accept responsibility and want to pass it back to the individuals and their families that they failed in the first place so they can spend elsewhere.
I like to think my son would only suffer the mild discomfort of most people but be able to be well enough to have an average life, with a job he may well hate but tolerate, wages that are really too low but OK, friends that are transient and not that great but OK, maybe married with a partner he sometimes argues with or maybe DC that sometimes piss him off and are a challenge but a source of happiness. Struggle with the costs of housing and life in general but muddle through. Maybe even have mild depression and rely on ADs for a while. Maybe get divorced and have to navigate co-parenting.
Instead none of this is even remotely possible. Late diagnosis, tribunal placement in special school. Too little, too late. The mental health damage was done. Placement failed. DS housebound and me a f/t carer. And now they may reduce or stop PIP to encourage him into work. They couldn’t even deliver secondary education!
Life is not what I expected but I have reconciled myself to sacrifice having had years of living with a suicidal offspring - how much would a PhD and academic career compensated for a child dead by suicide - and we muddle along. But we won’t muddle along without PIP or ESA or CA. We will be in crisis. Individuals and family will struggle first but the state can’t avoid the additional cost hitting it hard and fast because provision is already cut to the bone.
This is the context. We are looking at the figures wrong and are encouraged to do so. Only a small minority of those diagnosed as depressed/anxious qualify for PIP and are the most severely affected. Something like 35% are otherwise disabled. The idea that anyone would qualify is ludicrous. Support to apply for PIP provided mostly by charities exists because the majority of legitimate claims are turned down but repealed on tribunal.
Changing eligibility criteria in this climate will absolutely result in an increase of claims being referred to tribunal. At tax payer cost. I disagreed with the points received previously but didn’t progress it further because there was no point - DS still qualified for higher rate - but I would absolutely challenge reduction. And win at tribunal. For example, I manage all financial matters, have POA for financial affairs, and DWP appointee, but according to assessment DS is generally OK with complex budgeting and only received 2 points (needs prompting). The tribunal system will collapse and all claims will have to be paid pending tribunal.
Where is the saving?
I can understand that people are concerned but they are misguided to think that the disabled are the problem. Not even the disabled who don’t need PIP, like pensioners who don’t need WFP or parents who don’t need CB but save it as a bonus but people who rely on PIP to stay in work or to survive.
If it’s just we can’t afford it then means test other benefits before going after disability benefits.
And first and foremost make employers pay a living wage so tax payers don’t have to stump up benefit payments to subsidise low wages or high housing costs or high child care costs.
There are alternatives.