ATOS Medical

[Empusa]

Link here

A report from the select committee on work and pensions has been published about welfare reform. Specifically work capability assessments (WCA) as they move people on to ESA from income support.

My personal experience is that the WCA is a farce, and although they are reporting huge numbers of people being deemed "fit for work", a huge amount of those are later overturned at tribunal.

Finally this awful practice of taking people off benefits when their health isn't enough that they can work is being taken notice of.

But what will they do about it?

For all of those who I'm sure will come on and tell us about their friend of a friend who is claiming fraudulently, that's a different issue.

We are talking about those who are genuinely disabled who are finding themselves not only without financial support, but also under suspicion. In my own experience the whole process took over 6 months.

That's 6 months of stress on top of the daily stress of disability. Stress and fear.

Surely we all agree that the most vulnerable in society should be protected? Not treated like criminals?

This has happened to me and my mother. Just thought I'd write my experience of their 'assessments'.

In my mothers case, she attended an assessment done by someone who was not a health professional, but had and I quote: 'an interest in mental health'. She looked down upon my mother, making her uncomfortable and the whole experience unpleasant. My mother is has a severe case of bipolar. We are waiting for the outcome, but it's likely I fear that my mother will have to appeal.

For myself, I remember my assessments to be rushed, and I was interrupted on mulitple occasions when trying to give a full answer to questions.

The problem is that we can no longer afford the numbers of claimants. Let me rephrase, we no longer want to pay so much towards disability benefits. Affordability is relative.

But of course those who are current claimants will naturally feel they are entitled to it and be fearful of losing it. All understandable.

The press have had a field day here which I don't think the figures bear up. We hear example after example of Mr/Mrs X who clearly cannot work and the devil spawn of satan assessed them and said they are fit to work.

According to the BBC:

7% were incapable of any work
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance
36% dropped out of the application process
1% of applications were still in progress

Now the interesting statistic there is 36% dropped out completely. And only 39% have been deemed fit for work. Another 17% would need support.

So I guess it's a matter of your own beliefs as to if those figures are too high/too low. Personally my gut instinct says it's about right.

Very few people are truly incapable of any work and quite rightly they should be supported. But the days of doling out money willy nilly and for practically any illness is over. Labour already had started tightening the noose. The Tories have simply carried this on.

"But of course those who are current claimants will naturally feel they are entitled to it and be fearful of losing it."

By that you mean the disabled people who cannot work? The ones being kicked off.

Also from that same article by the BBC you've missed out the percentage of people who were told they were "fit for work" and later had their decision overturned. That figure would by 39%

So that would be 39% of people considered fit for work actually aren't. That is the figure that is too high.

That 39% is people with disabilities forced to go through months and months of stress, fear and a drop in income (and that's if they are lucky and they aren't one of many hit by an "administrative error" and have their income stopped totally). Doesn't that figure strike you as too high?

The fraudulent claims and the fact that people who aren't fit for work are being told they are are two sides of the same broken system. How hard can it be for a civilised society to come up with a system of assessing claimants properly and intelligently, without conflicts of interest or incentives to find them fit when they're not?

Niceguy - the figures being released by the DWP are very misleading. There's a good explanation of why here.

in fact the Select Committee has basically told the DWP to stop issuing misleading statistics:

"we believe that more care is needed in the way the Government engages with the media and in particular the way in which it releases and provides its commentary on official statistics on the IB reassessment. In the end, the media will choose its own angle, but the Government should take great care with the language it itself uses and take all possible steps to ensure that context is provided when information about IB claimants found fit for work is released, so that unhelpful and inaccurate stories can be shown to have no basis."

"able to do some sort of work" can mean "able to do one hour a day on a computer sitting up in bed".

It doesn't mean "able to earn one's living" from work.

are we really lumbered with Atos until 2015 - can't we sack them for doing a crap job? Would getting it wrong 39% of the time be acceptable in any other area?!

from the Select Committee report:

15. We remain concerned about whether there are sufficient levers within the DWP contract with Atos to ensure that Atos consistently gets the assessment right first time. We therefore recommend that, when the contract is re-let in 2015 and in future contracts for other medical assessments, DWP reviews the performance indicators, with significant financial penalties built in if standards are not met. (Paragraph 93)

16. We agree with the Minister that it would not have been practical to introduce a second provider for the IB reassessment but we believe that the Government should consider contracting a second provider to deliver the ongoing Work Capability Assessments for new ESA claims when the reassessment of existing claimants has been completed, in order to drive up performance through competition. We recommend that the Government publishes proposals, before the end of 2012, for how such a system of competition could work in practice. (Paragraph 94)

I've had a quick read of that link and I understand the writers point about not including people who have not been tested. Not sure I necessarily agree but i understand the point.

The problem here is not helped by the tabloid media. No-one who is being fair should saying that 7% are deemed unfit for work, therefore 93% are cheats.

Even the 39% of people who are moved onto jobseekers. No-one is saying they don't have a disability or special need. Or that they were cheats. Just that they can still work and therefore they should be looking for it.

The bar has been set higher because the amount paid out in DLA was unsustainable. So given the sheer number of people claiming, the line had to be drawn somewhere.

At the end of the day, we can't keep giving money to so many people. It's simply impossible. The Thatcher govt turned a blind eye to it. New Labour expanded it and now it's the current coalition left to pick up the pieces/.

The shocking thing is that there is no incentive in the Atos contract for them to get it right - the taxpayer is picking up the huge cost of all the appeals, Atos just takes the money and runs.

At the end of the day, we can't keep giving money to so many people. It's simply impossible. So your suggestion for supporting people who, to use ThisIsANiceCage's excellent phrase, are not able to earn their living from work is what, exactly? Given that the private sector does not have a great record in employing people with disabilities/mental health problems anyway.

At the end of the day, Niceguy, people will die.

They are already doing so with suicides.

And this post is a very typical scenario. "Disabled" means exactly that - not able to do things. Often this means not able to earn one's way out of things. With no option and no prospect of things improving - just this situation getting worse and worse till you die.

It doesn't take much for one to decide that should happen sooner rather than later.

But actually Niceguy you made an impression on me months ago saying, "the poor will suffer."

You seemed perfectly happy with this.

Imagine if you were employing someone and you signed a ten-year contract with them, during which time they got 39% of their decisions wrong - and probably more, but 39% were just the ones you found out about.

Atos' excuse is that people win their appeals because "new" evidence comes to light. And people say, well, if you'd let us put that evidence forward during our assessments, but you didn't...

I've just been reading about Unum, though, and I'm boggling even more. James Purnell let an insurance provider design the WCA?

Oh here we go. Me pointing out little things like affordability must mean I'm some right wing nutter who believes they should all eat cake right?

I'm not making any suggestions about supporting people. Merely pointing out the status quo is unsustainable. As I've said before, this seems accepted by New Labour towards the end who started the reforms and the coalition who are carrying it on.

What is it that's so threatening about someone saying "But where's the money coming from?"

Does anyone really believe there are two million working age adults who are entirely and utterly incapable of any work??

Do you further believe the best way forward is to give that person money with no questions asked and no requirements to do anything else such as periodic tests to see if the condition has improved? Perhaps it might be an idea to help those who can to find a job so that they may lead a more fulfilling life than one on benefits?

The idea that everyone who used to get DLA is simply not fit for any work is just nonsense. My father is registered blind but seems to manage just fine running his restaurant. The secretary in an office I used to work at who is wheelchair bound seemed to manage just fine with her typing. The guy in the call centre I met last year who is also blind seemed to be able to answer phones just fine (albeit with adapted screens). The project manager i had who only had one arm seemed to manage his project just fine. So don't tell me that if you are disabled then you can't do ANY work. The whole point of this exercise is to find those who can and those who cannot.

And the way people are portraying that people are being left penniless and destitute is also a disservice, just as much as the tabloids are for hamming it up that all claimants are cheats. The people who are being moved to jobseekers. Yes, they now have to look for work. But while doing so, they are still entitled to housing, council tax rebates, tax credits etc.

As for the "poor will suffer" comment, if I remember correctly it was during a discussion about the budget deficit. Unfortunately it's the ugly truth. There is no way out of this without the poor suffering. Raising taxes alone won't come anywhere near fixing our fiscal woes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. I didn't say I was happy about it. I'm not. But if someone has a realistic plan which means the poor & disadvantaged don't suffer then I'm sure the government would love to know.

As I've said before, somebody has to pay for all these benefits. And somebody is skint now.

CustardCake - yes, you're right I think, but then a fair number of people probably do make claims who aren't entitled - and equally well, more people would probably appeal if they had the resources.

"Do you further believe the best way forward is to give that person money with no questions asked and no requirements to do anything else such as periodic tests to see if the condition has improved?"

Nobody has said that. What they have done is pointed out the current method of testing is not working.

"And the way people are portraying that people are being left penniless and destitute is also a disservice"

Is it? Bearing in mind that those with disabilities often have higher costs, then there is the point that they are looking at reducing JSA and HB for anyone on JSA over a certain amount of time. On top of that you have the JSA sanctions for things like not being able to attend appointments (which makes no allowance for those with disabilities). In which case they will remove people from JSA entirely.

The whole JSA thing is different for a disabled and non-disabled person.

Having been through the appeals process I can see why so many drop out rather than continue. They are very good at making it difficult.

niceguy, where's the money coming from is in general a very legitimate question - I'm a cuts hawk - I just think that the WCA is a completely broken and corrupt system (thanks Labour for another idiotic contract) and needs to be very radically changed.

Also, who's saying "with no questions asked?"

As to whether there really are two million adults incapable of any work - I don't know, because we seem incapable of finding out. Until we get it right, we're not going to know - and many people are going to end up screwed.

Whole haystack of strawmen there. Among which: " So don't tell me that if you are disabled then you can't do ANY work."

No one is telling you that.

But, er, you have realised that "disabled" isn't a single condition? And that many disabled people who are able to work are already doing so. IB not being exactly generous.

So those on IB are more likely to be the people who are less able to work.

Disabled people are able to work in many ways, that's true niceguy. I have disabled friends, and actually worked in employment supporting people with long term health conditions and disablities into work. I still support people with mental health difficulties, though not directly with employment issues. I have worked in this field for 6 years now.

But, how many employers do you think want to employ disabled people?

I can tell you: very few. And look at the current economic climate, which has lead to many workplaces becoming cut throat and pared back. These are not good environments for encouraging employers to take on people where they may need to make adaptations, or allow flexibility in working.

What's more, many disabled people, once out of work, tend to remain out of work for longer, and this negatively affects their CV and job prospects. 11% of visually impaired people are in paid employment. Not because they are incapable of work. But because they are incapable of getting an employer to take them on.

You may also be confusing DLA with other benefits. DLA is (was) payable to all persons with a disability, it has nothing to do with employment. In fact, the figures put out by the present government around the 'cost' of disability benefits are highly misleading: less than 2% of DLA claimants have been found to be fraudulent, it is a very hard benefit to obtain. And being made harder.

Affordability may - may - come into it, yes the figures look high (when we talk about millions) but you need to look at it in context. Can we as a society afford to pay DLA to enable people with disabilities to engage meaningfully in life i the way people without disabilities take for granted? I would hope we could.

Atos, let's face it, get incentive payments for every person they deem as 'fit for work'. Their procedures are highly suspect. Take, for example, my patient, Mr X. Mr X was deaf in one ear. On top of this he suffered from depression. And arthritis. He had lost his job a year before I met him. He qualified for IB and DLA. As he moved to ESA he had an assessment. The 'doctor' spent the whole assessment shouting at him. He did his best to lipread. The form she completed deeming him 'fit for work' declared he had no hearing problems at all. He lost his benefit and had to submit an appeal or claim JSA (which takes 3 months to be processed). Mr X never said he was not 'fit for work'. He was actively looking for work. He wanted ESA because it provided him with extra support to help him find work because he had a registered disability (hearing impairment) which affected the type of jobs and employers he could approach. The distress it caused, and the affect on his depression, set him back and he relapsed. He won his appeal, because his wife was at the assessment and witnessed all the shouting going on.

The structure is not fit for purpose. It was set up to prevent people who were entitled to a benefit getting it. This is true of the many mllions of pounds of unclaimed benefits remaining in the treasury every year.

Believe me, once you scratch the surface of this debacle you quickly realise the nonsense spouted by the tabloids has very few grains of truth in it.

Mr X by the way was a real patient but I changed a few details so he could not be identified. But I could, if I wanted to, give you a long list of ways in which the benefits reform and Atos is 'unfit for work'.

And another thing....there have been many schemes for as long as I can remember supporting disabled people into work. They have been somewhat successful, but grossly underfunded and the policies change so rapidly it renders them operational nightmares to administer.

The system is broken. People, by and large, want to work. But the employment system we have in this country often prevents them.

If we were to effectively support all disabled people into employment it would 'probably' cost more than the amount we currently pay out in benefits. Which is why no government has wholeheartedly supported such a policy. It is cheaper, and easier, to cut access to benefits for the weakest and most vulnerable in society - those least able to fight back.

To do this though vast amounts of propaanda have been neded to demonise those who claim benefits. The rolling news reports of the last year ave provided exactly that. The perfect breeding ground for sweeping cuts. And having people saying 'Well, we have to, we just can't afford it'. We can. We choose not to.

The weakest are being attacked, the powerful are growing more powerful. Those at the 'front line' see this every day.

Haven't read other posts, I'm afraid, just wanted to contribute: I failed my ATOS medical review for ESA six months ago. I appealed and was listed for a paper hearing. I didn't get myself together enough to submit my case to the tribunal.

I heard today - the tribunal allowed my appeal; I've gone from zero points to 15 on the same evidence the ATOS dipstick examiner had in front of her.

The DWP is right to query their (own!) procedures. I hope everyone here ends up being treated fairly, too, even though it's a long wait on a pittance. I would say I'm looking forward to the arrears, but have been using a credit card to keep going so won't see a penny. Still very relieved, though.