More WCA dishonesty - FoI confession from DWP

When assessing mobility within a WCA, Atos HCPs are allowed to recommend the use of a wheelchair to improve mobility (if they think it will do this) for someone who does not normally use one.  They can do this without any specific discussion with the claimant or their GP.  They are not however allowed to recommend treatment – make sense of this if you can, but as unbelievable as it is, it is true.  Decision Makers are allowed to do the same thing, without specifically declaring it to claimants – all the claimant is told is that for mobility, they have scored (say) zero points.

This methodology was introduced in March 2011, presumably with the approval of Professor Harrington and is dishonest to say the least, as the claimant is not made aware of this trick before, during or after their WCA.

Through appeals, the courts have seen the injustice and dangers of DWP’s approach and have issued guidance.  From this FoI request, it appears that DWP thinks it is outside of the law and can ignore the advice.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wheelchairs_assignment_by_dms_no

Ongoing DWP Deception & Misrepresentation with WCA (1)

Not a surprise to many that this takes place, but I will continue to highlight examples as best I can to help you avoid the pitfalls and add to the fast growing body of data that exposes the underlying political dogma that lends itself to legal challenge at some point.

This post relates to the March 2011 decision to remove the bending and kneeling test/descriptor from the WCA, the reason given being that these movements are no longer a significant feature of the modern workplace.  Who says?

DWP’s response was that disability equality legislation has been in place for a number of years and this was enough to indicate that the descriptor changes were justified.  They directed me to a couple of reports that would apparently explain the detail and provide the corresponding evidence.

They did nothing of the kind and one even pointed out that overall, there had been deterioration in compliance with the law since 2005!  More ironic was the fact that in the first few pages, DWP has printed is standard disclaimer saying that the view expressed in the report are not necessarily supported by DWP.
If this is the best “evidence” they have, God forbid, but they have been unable to provide anything better to justify the descriptor change.  All this proves of course is that the REAL motivation is coming from political dogma NOT sound scientific evidence – something many know or suspected already.

Sooner or later, this continual drip, drip, drip of undermining and disproving the propositions on which policies have supposedly been based will expose the sham for what it is and bring about the obvious and simple change of direction needed.

Who Knows Best?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8962647/Benefit-relief-for-cancer-patients.html

This article includes a couple of statements that appear frequently.  I have never really understood them, but they are important because they are used to justify much of what the Government is doing:

“The Government believes the system deters some patients from returning to work, even if they are physically able to do so and would find employment a helpful part of their recovery.

A report by Prof Malcolm Harrington, the government adviser on testing welfare claimants, said the “automatic entitlement” to the illness and disability benefit for cancer patients had been counterproductive, and led to patients becoming dependent on benefits, stigmatising cancer and causing employers to make poor decisions.“

·      Did the “old” system really deterred patients who can work and want to work from finding a job?

·      Have patients where working would be an important part of their recovery programme been denied the opportunity by “the system”?

·      Are there sick or disabled people who can work and want to work, but have allowed themselves unnecessarily to be sidelined and prevented from even trying to find a job?

·      Quite what “poor decisions” have employers been making and what would the “better decisions” have been?

To be honest, I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe. 

I’m sure by now that if there were droves of sick or disabled people wanting jobs but being denied the chance, it would have received far more publicity.  By the same token, it the current actions by the Government were striking a chord with these same people ( . . . . thank God they are at last doing something about it . . . ) we’d have heard much more support for the changes, when in fact I have seen nothing other than concern & criticism.

I have never trusted any unitary, highly prescriptive view of anything, as plausible as it may sound.  People are obviously not all the same and need individual consideration – one size does not fit all.    These sweeping generalisations are just a loosely veiled attempt by the Government to impose its will by convincing us it is in our best interests.  Thank you very much, but I’ll be the judge of that.

I have been through three WCAs and not once has anyone from Atos or DWP asked me what I would like to do.  Perhaps this would be a sensible first step in the right direction.

UK Government to withdraw work capability assessments from Cancer patients Petition

<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ask-uk-government-to-withdraw-work-capability-assessmen.html%22%3EAsk UK Government to withdraw work capability assessments from Cancer patients Petition | GoPetition</a>

Contribution Based ESA - 12 month time limit impact assessment

The published IA is on the link http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf

There are a few issues over its rigour:

Quote #1:

“It was never intended that ESA for those in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) should be paid for an unlimited period to people who, by definition, are expected to move towards the workplace with help and support.”

Who says so?  This needs to be supported by a clear policy statement elsewhere

Quote #2

“Government intervention is required to help ensure that ESA is paid for a temporary period for those placed in the WRAG, thereby encouraging a return to work and stopping people being trapped on benefits for a lifetime”.

The WCA determines who is and who isn’t fit for work and the frequency with which an individual attends allows their return to work in line with their recovery.  This does not cause them to be “trapped” (whatever that means) and there is therefore no justification to apply an arbitrary time limit other than simply to

a)      Save money

b)      Create a financial “back-stop” because the WCA is not working effectively.

Quote #3 – Policy Objectives

1.       “To ensure that ESA is paid for a temporary period thereby creating a culture that does not allow people to stay permanently in the WRAG, that they are expected to move towards work or into the Support Group if there is deterioration in their functional impairment.”

This can be automatically achieved through an effectively managed WCA programme – see above.

2.       “Simplification of the benefit system, better alignment of contributory ESA rules with contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance in the run up to the introduction of Universal Credit.”

There is no logic or sound basis for “aligning” ESA with JSA.  Being ill is NOT the same as being jobless.

[As an aside for ESA aficionados, UNUM quite openly declare they believe that sickness and disability are both hidden forms of unemployment.]

3.       “Reductions in social security spending to ensure that money is targeted on those most in need will help the UK's challenging fiscal position.”

Ah, so at last we have the real reason!

Quote #4 - What policy options have been considered? Please justify preferred option

1.      “Do nothing.

2.      Time limit contributory ESA for those in the WRAG to one year. “

Options around the coverage and length of the time limit were considered. One year was selected as the best balance between providing people claiming contributory ESA in the WRAG with enough support and reducing the cost of contributory ESA. It was decided to exclude customers in the ESA Support Group on the basis that they are the most severely disabled or terminally ill and therefore least likely to move into work.”

As you can see, there is no evidence-based information to support a 12 month limit, so it is completely arbitrary.

This section of the IA requires the preferred option to be justified.  The paragraph above does not constitute justification.  It does not, for example, explain why say 18 months is a poorer option.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/time_limit_contributory_esa_to_o

Muddled Government Thinking

It repeatedly tries to tell us that GPs are rubbish at assessing fitness to work – they have an axe to grind, so cannot be regarded as independent, impartial or objective.  What this means is that they disregard the Hippocratic Oath and will actively work against government policy and the best interests of the national economy for no good reason other than presumably subversion and self interest.  This is of course based on nothing other than the fact that the Government does not like the outcomes from GP health assessments and so feels the need to undermine their credibility.  If I was a GP, I would be incandescent over this slight on my integrity.

It is very important to separate out the different elements of the WCA and address them separately.  The simple fact is that GPs make their judgement based on different criteria, so a direct, simplistic comparison in any way with Atos HCPs is automatically invalid.  So the first step is to segregate the 3 main elements of the WCA:

1.    The parameters within the WCA – what tests should it contain to make a sensible and realistic assessment of one’s ability to work?  This includes the consistency needed (same times every day) as well as the ability to get about etc.  I have worked for 40 years and none of my 3 WCAs tested anything like what it takes to survive a typical day.

2.    Who could and who should perform it (and probably where)?  For debate another time.  Actually this hardly matters if the assessment itself is correctly constructed and performed well – as long as the HCPs are suitably qualified/experienced.

3.    Compliance with the WCA specification – how well do the people doing it actually do it?

Despite the Government’s protestations that the content of the WCA has been designed by experts, there is still a widespread and justified belief that is not fit for purpose.  As I’ve said above, it bears little resemblance to any job I have ever done, so no surprise its outcomes are so regularly challenged successfully.

In an attempt to fix this problem the Government has progressively and dishonestly changed the assessment parameters simply to manipulate the results and in so doing has lost all credibility for itself as well as the WCA.  These changes have been based on some wholly spurious but convenient assumptions about the effect of legislation that cannot be supported with hard evidence or empirically.   In addition it has turned a blind eye to the non-compliance that is endemic both within Atos and its own Decision Making ranks.  I have never seen such a transparent deception and the fact that so many chronically disabled people have been so badly mis-assessed should cause it to hang its head in shame.  A justification based on not being able to make an omelette without breaking eggs is both inappropriate and pathetic – the ends do not justify the means nor vice versa.

A muddled approach to solving quite seperate issues is guaranteed to produce a muddled solution doomede to failure.

Saddest of all, approached logically, none of this is necessary, so I am left wondering whether the Government is stupid or evil?  Answers on a postcard please . . . . . .

A few Pragmatic Thoughts about the WCA and Welfare Reform

From time to time, society is forced to shift its position and adapt to changing circumstances.  It is of course the job of Government to bring these changes about fairly, but more than anything else, it must be honest and declare its real agenda – how much of the current strategy would still be happening without such a large debt, purely out of political dogma?

I have just a few pragmatic perspectives on this:

1.         When the public sector has a function that is not performing the way it thinks it should, it creates another function to either monitor the first one of take on part of its workload.  If this doesn’t work, it will overlay another audit-type operation.  It then wonders why its costs run out of control.  In the private sector, the approach is more logical and efficient – if something is not working properly it gets mended.

2.         This attitude can only be due to the poor quality of management available and the false assumption that more mediocrity is a substitute for “good”.  Outsourcing piecemeal to the private sector is likewise not the answer, as the outsourced service will only ever perform to the same standard as its “customer”.  The task of managing an outsourced service is different, but no easier than an in-house operation.  One thing is for sure – responsibility & accountability for the quality of the service delivered can NEVER be outsourced.

3.         Occupational health is not a new branch of medicine; it is simply looking at an individual’s condition and abilities from a slightly different angle.  It does not therefore need an army of newly qualified specialists and an entire educational infrastructure; just perhaps some retraining around expertise that already exists.  Why are GPs so incapable and why must they remain that way forever?

4.         One of the main justifications for a change in approach is absenteeism rates of c 7% (allegedly).  This may be true in the public sector, but I have never worked anywhere where it has exceeded 3%, below 2% if you take out the individuals whose illness is indisputable – short or long term.  This can be achieved with fair, but diligent and consistent management.

5.         It has recently said that GPs have no incentive not to sign people off work – no incentive that is other than a responsibility to act in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath.  Why does everyone need an incentive to do their job correctly?  The Government’s starting assumption with the sick and disabled is that they are all fraudsters and it appears it has a similarly dim view of GPs.  They must stop judging others by their own duplicitous standards.

6.         There has to be a definition of “work” and the Government must describe clearly what it proposes to subsidise (through benefit payments of one kind or another) and where it will draw a line.  For example:

a.    To what extent will it help an individual return to their profession?  When and against what criteria will it abandon this in favour of finding any job?

b.    Within a) to what degree will it reflect the characteristics of particular job markets – some are very much tougher than others?

c.     How long a term view will it take?  E.g. would it bear with someone who could return high income tax payments if found the right employment longer or press them into any menial, low paid job?

7.         The Government has knowingly & dishonestly amended (i.e. toughened) WCA criteria on the basis that workplaces generally are now far more accommodating than they were and have been developed such that they are considerably less demanding (at least physically) than ever before.  The clearest example is the statement that the modern workplace no longer requires either bending & kneeling, which is why this test has been removed from the WCA.

This assertion is based on nothing other than an assumption that employers have responded to various layers of legislation in a particular way – it is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever.  The assumption does however suit its purpose very well.

8.         In behaving disingenuously, the Tories do not just damage their own party; they damage the reputation of Westminster as a whole.  Government must at all costs retain integrity and be constantly monitored against the Civil Service code of ethics and it is down to the other political parties to ensure this comes about.

Dear Mr Osborne - give it a break!

George Osborne has made his loathing of the sick and disabled plain enough since he has been in office, but now he is trying to cast his net even wider.

The rule is that annual inflationary increases to benefit payments are based on the September figure - 5.2% and barely in line with inflation.  OK, so it is higher than he would have liked and what he feels he can afford, but a promise is a promise. 

In previous years when the Semptember figure was lower than inflation, out of a sense of fairness, did he bump it up - NO HE DID NOT.  So, Mr Osborne you have no need to make your intentions any clearer, but this time if you do have a shortfall, find it elsewhere - the area within the MoD that thinks it is fine to pay £26 for a light bulb would be one place to start.

http://www.pensioncalculator.org/12158/news/state-pension-pensioners-to-dodge-govt-benefit-cuts/