One in six PIP claimants have no extra costs linked to their disability

[Allseeingallknowing]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/40693771/pip-claimants-disability-benefit/
So, can money be saved here?

Completely agree with that. So much time and money is wasted by people failing to do their jobs. They should introduce a policy where is more than say 20% of an assessors decisions are overturned the assessor should be fired.

As many people have already said, most of the people who say that they get PIP but have no extra expenses have an appointee who sorts all that out for them.

So many disabled people aren't entitled to PIP at all but have high extra costs because of their disabilities.

Tbh I think if we want to reduce the costs of disability benefit fairly we need to sort the nhs. I know so many people who can't work because they are stuck on a waiting list. My dh has a problem with his medication and he can't get a GP appointment for 3 months. My son is waiting to have his ingrown toenail sorted, 12 month waiting list. My other son is waiting for an adhd and autism assessment. 4 years waiting list.

Just because you haven't met someone doesn't mean that don't exist? A survey like should logically lead to an underestimate because you'd not be the sharpest tool in the box if you go around telling people you get money for nothing.

I am just setting out the recommendations for people who don't want to click on the Sun link. Not saying I agree with them!

Yes I have seen the cost of disability equipment. I do wonder if the the RF has factored in what will happen when the equipment needs repairing or replacing or upgrading. Would people have to reapply everytime?

A lot of the 16 to 24 year olds won't be aware of the extra costs.

One could aruge that simply a takeaway or a ready meal is extra costs generated by disability so I dont believe this.

How many people did they ask. I get pip and wasnt asked. Its probably not representative like the school readiness survey they hit the media only had 1000 responses from parents.

I think the answer is so what?

When they were asked they couldn't identify extra costs. Not quite the same as there were none.

The concept of a weekly payment, set at a lower and higher rate, for people needing help with daily living tasks or in connection with bodily functions wasn't introduced with PIP. Attendance Allowance, originally for those over pension age, goes back to the seventies.

Is somebody going to pose the same question for that cohort?

They asked about 2500 people

How much are those services going to cost? How much is the additional layer of assessment, appeal etc. going to cost?

Exactly. And given that services are on their knees everywhere, where will the extra capacity come from?

Looking at pip as a whole,

there’s two arguments going on here which to some extent aren’t the same.

first, that benefits need to be cut. Half of all money paid out on benefits goes on pension. So there are limits on how much you can save by cutting other stuff. Hence the focus on the triple lock.

the obvious way to cut pip is to means test it, but my suspicion would be that most claimants are low income so it wouldn’t save a lot. You’d need to also do a bit like child benefit and allow people to get pip but not get the money as it is a passport for lots of other things - blue badge, carers tickets etc.

again, for quite a few claimants they have social packages of care anyway. I’m disabled and many of the people I have met at disability support groups are living in council provided adapted homes with care packages of people going in regularly. The cost to the state of the care packages is really high and cutting pip will just mean that they still need overnight care/wheelchair/etc so they’ll “contribute” less to the care package but it’ll still be funded.

so no saving overall. But it’ll come out of the benefits bill and go into the social care bill.

separately, the idea that pip should be partially a support package is not a bad idea. The nhs doesn’t really provide wheelchairs anymore and it’s up to you as a disabled person to buy your own aids with very little advice, and finding exercise classes etc that are accessible is really really hard.

so… realistically they’ll probably means test it but it won’t save much.

The qualification for PIP, to me, doesn't seem to meet the stated goals.

If it is to compensate for the additional costs a disability brings, this should be one of the primary criteria. But it is based on ability to carry out certain functions.

My DS has a lifelong, incurable medical condition that qualifies as a disability. He qualifies for higher rate DLA currently. However, as long as the condition is being managed, he won't qualify for PIP (no-one with the condition seems to). He will only qualify for it if he is not managing it well (in which case there would be significant costs to the NHS too). The condition needs monitoring and managing constantly and medication at least 5-10 times a day and night. And there are numerous additional costs (on top of the NHS prescriptions, which are free but don't cover everything needed). If managed, it is unlikely to bankrupt him, but it seems mad that those with the same condition as adults don't get any support when they will all have associated costs and it is stated that PIP is there for this purpose.

Precisely. I am severely physically disabled, born without eyes and with multiple joint deformities. The monthly costs I incur related to my disabilities, such as support with daily living and personal care, specialist equipment and adaptive technology, vastly outweigh the amount I receive on higher rate PIP. That is ignoring the other, more infrequent purchases, I need to make for large items of equipment, home adaptation, etc. If my actual disability related expenditure were fully reimbursed by the government I would cost them significantly more than I do currently.
However, while an individually assessed system for PIP would see me financially better off, I would not be in favour of it as I have neither the time inclination to spend many hours extra a month on the laborious admin involved in providing thorough receipts and invoices. Since I'm blind I would also probably have to pay someone to help me with this which would cost the government more money, so I am not sure this is the cost-saving solution some people think it would be for a myriad of reasons.
Finally, I work. PIP allows me to function day to day. Without PIP I would be unable to afford the extra costs of getting to and functioning while at work and would therefore have to quit, meaning I'd cost the sainted tax-payer, of whom I am one by the way, more money. Just something to think about for those espousing means-testing PIP claimants.

The point is people need different amounts. For many more people the PIP amount is way too low.

But this is just a benefit-bashing thread.

It isn’t ’left-wing’, it’s an independent think tank. They inform policy across the political spectrum.

Yes it is unreasonable. Instead of baying for the blood of those who are least fortunate in life, people should be getting angry about the UK's low pay culture and the ableist workplace culture that means too many disabled people struggle to get so much of a sniff of an interview.

Hot on the heels on the other thread of is pip too easy to get?.

Here's an idea better wish misfortune doesnt visit your household.
A redundancy.
Illness
Accident
Death in the family
And it's all change in the blink of an eye
So to the fuckers
Be careful for what you wish on others.

The disabled are easy targets, so cruel and unfair.

The Government needs to look at Universal Credit and start including child maintenance in the calculation and reverse lifting the child benefit cap. Make men pay for the children they produce, instead of expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab. I’m fed up of losers being state subsidised into producing a ridiculous amount of children.

The answer is to make state pension means tested. That would save the welfare bill.
Why do millionaires need the state pension they don't.

Where is the hate? Surely many disabled people don't see themselves as vulnerable? It is not hateful to same some people with disabilities aren't vulnerable. One my colleagues gets PIP as he has a wheelchair and adapted car He would be offended if I described him as one of the most vulnerable people in society, he one of the most capable people I know (unless there are stairs involved then he very much like a dalek - a joke he makes on an almost daily basis). .

The state pension should absolutely not be means tested. It's an important social contract regardless of the income level other people might have.

Who did they ask? My DD would have no clue what her disability costs me and would probably say "nothing"

They pay it back in tax. It takes the entirety of the personal allowance. I also very much doubt that any millionaires claim it.

You need to stop reading the sun and find a new hobby that does not involve victimising people with disabilities.

I am so sick of these random threads from right wingers who know nothing about living with disabilities and are too daft to realise that disabled people are just another scapegoat that the right wing media picks on because, god forbid, rich people could actually be asked to pay their fair share of tax if people stopped falling for their propaganda that disabled people and foreigners are responsible for the UK's cost of living crisis...