Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
In today’s news… DWP start compelling people to therapeutic interventions
I suspect we’ve got one of these trials on our doorstep. Peoples’ thoughts would be appreciated.
Under the current scheme it can’t be Work related Activity, I know that much but beyond that?
I’m not sure what to make of the stats: 1.9 million with mental health / behavioural problems - is that about 4 out of every 5 claimants? Anyone know what proportion of these also have physical problems?
I think we need to know what they mean by “treatment”. If its as laughable and unfit for purpose as the “support” offered by Seetec et al then it will be no help for claimants, just another way to manipulate them off benefits.
Don’t know about anyone else, but the idea of compulsory “treatment” reminds me of the worst excesses of the Stalinist era.
I have many MH clients who are currently not in receipt of any specialist intervention and are just medicated via GP with various anti depressants.
I ask them if they have been referred and a frequent reply is “I used to have a psychologist/CPN/Psychiatrist/whatever” but they told me that they couldnt help, so they cancelled the sessions. Havent seen anyone for ages.
If the stretched MH services cant cope with capacity now how can they manage the ESA workload?
bbc reporting:
- The DWP said treatment would not be mandatory in the pilot scheme but that remained an “idea” for the future.
- The first of four government pilots is being trialled at four job centres - Durham and Tees Valley, Surrey and Sussex, Black Country and Midland Shires.
- This pilot will test whether combining talking therapy with employment support based on the “individual placement and support” model works better than the usual jobcentre or mental health support for ESA claimants, said the DWP.
- The other pilots will begin later this year. The government has not yet said what form these will take
There is another angle to this that has barely been discussed.
Community mental health teams and other MH services are struggling to cope with the demand for their services. Since the inception of the NHS, access to, and priority for, treatment has been based on clinical need. Is it appropriate for certain benefit claimants to gain access to treatment when others, who may be much more sick, are denied treatment?
There is another angle to this that has barely been discussed.
Community mental health teams and other MH services are struggling to cope with the demand for their services. Since the inception of the NHS, access to, and priority for, treatment has been based on clinical need. Is it appropriate for certain benefit claimants to gain access to treatment when others, who may be much more sick, are denied treatment?
The service involved round our parts has received extra funding from DWP to participate in the pilot.
I think this is the beginning of the move to a more “value added” approach to service provision that was touted in the press a while back. Those who might once again contribute see greater provision than those who are unlikely to.
I’m not sure what to make of the stats: 1.9 million with mental health / behavioural problems - is that about 4 out of every 5 claimants? Anyone know what proportion of these also have physical problems?
Playing with the tabulation tool I suspect that the 1.986m claimants are the total ESA caseload at November ‘13, it shows people with primary reason for claim as Mental and Behavioural at 921k. I’m not going to add all the totals up mind, well, not yet anyway… might be a slow day today though.
Edit… I take it all back! I’ve found the sum function in Excel and according to the figures in the FOI every single ESA claimant (1,986,940 on both charts) has a mental health or behavioural problem.
I smell rats!
[ Edited: 15 Jul 2014 at 10:16 am by Dan_Manville ]It strikes me that a significant number of the clients I see where they ‘dont fit’ into either ESA or JSA are those clients who have usually a long term problem often that is now only medicated by their GP and not getting any of the MH Support ( the comment about not being able to help as above is very common too)
The issue seems to be the huge gulf between what does count as ill(ESA terms) and what counts as employable and a temptation by JC+ staff to advise the client to claim ESA just to get them off the statistics of claimers of JSA or maybe even because they have insufficient tools to help.
Yes every so often there is the client who you know a short break on ESA and being assessed will allow them the time to get over a shorter term issue, and in some ways the fact that appeals are taking over 6 months or assessment for new claimants taking well over 16 weeks are almost positives as long as the claimant doesnt fall into the trap of believing they are ‘ill enough’to be off long term
I know certainly here the queue for clients to see Support teams ( unless a real emergency) is a matter of months and not weeks and when they actually get to be seen it does appear the relationship between claimant and support has to allow the claimant to actually start to want to get help
Mental health services generally are seriously underfunded and require huge investment to meet existing needs. In some areas, mental health services appear to be in meltdown.
Sorting out those issues would do far more to reduce the impact of mental health problems not just for benefit claimants but for the wider population.
But, no that’s not half as headline grabbing as yet another DWP-led, gimmicky and punitive message implying that there are millions getting ESA who are not really unwell.
I don’t think many reputable and effective mental health services would want to be part of any compulsory interventions. This means that the cowboys of the private sector will become providers.
I don’t think many reputable and effective mental health services would want to be part of any compulsory interventions.
There is certainly one round these parts and they are going in with their eyes wide open… I’ve a lot of respect for the service that’s involved here and if DWP are partnering similar services elsewhere it might not be a bad thing as the pilot here is clinician led.
Whether the ogre of mandation might change the playing field is a question I’ve not tackled yet though.
Would it be reasonable to suggest that the people carrying out such therapeutic interventions on behalf of the DWP would suggest to clients that they would also benefit from such treatment at their home and if so would they then qualify for PIPs…
f. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 14 hours a week.
Would it be reasonable to suggest that the people carrying out such therapeutic interventions on behalf of the DWP would suggest to clients that they would also benefit from such treatment at their home and if so would they then qualify for PIPs…
f. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 14 hours a week.
Sadly the pilots are only for 6 months so claimants wouldn’t satisfy the prospective test…
I have been asked by our local mental health forum to give a talk/question & answer session about these pilot schemes, which they are very concerned about and I know little beyond what has appeared here and the internet.
Does anyone in the pilot areas have any info about how they have been going, what claimants make of them, what actually happens, how they are being presented to claimants, how many people have been referred so far (or are likely to be referred), etc.?
(I am assuming that they have actually started).
Any info gratefully received.
September’s Touchbase had a bit more info although maybe not as much detail as you need -
here’s rightsnet news story -