Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Government launches aids and appliances consultation
Deadline 29 January .... options for change include paying claimants a lump sum instead of benefit; introducing a new lower payment rate; and removing entitlement for those who ‘score all their points from aids and appliances’
Well blow me down - who could not have predicted this. Did DWP really think they could bring in new legislation with wholly new and complex definitions and not have it challeneged through the UTT etc? Did they learn nothing from the introduction of DLA / ESA etc? Wasn’t PIP supposed to have been drafted so as to avoid such litigation?
What was the phrase trotted out for DLA - ‘the courts interpretation has extended entitlement beyond the scope of DLA originally intended by parliament’, or was it ‘incompetent ...................’?
Now I know why my ears were burning - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9034/
I think the government’s numbers should be regarded cautiously (shocking I know).
Many assessors seem to go straight to ‘needs an aid or appliance’ where a person has problems with an activity, and many people accept this quite happily as it leads to the award they were after, and in many cases the scores for notionally ‘higher’ descriptors are still 2 points so the difference is immaterial. But there’s nothing to say that in many or most cases they wouldn’t also qualify for 2 points for prompting or assistance for the same activity.
Well- all I can say is Peter is dead right.
Oh look. Page 4 of the document, the claim that DLA was ‘inconsistent and subjective, with half of all awards being made on the basis of self-reporting of need with no additional medical evidence’.
So this discredited stat is recycled on the very first page of actual text. This does not augur well for a fair and honest consultation.
http://www.parkinsons.org.uk/news/15-may-2014/government-under-fire-misleading-benefit-statistics
15 May 2014
A report on Channel 4 News tonight revealed that the Government is under fire once again for using misleading statistics about assessments for its Disabilty Living Allowance (DLA) benefit.
The Department of Work and Pensions has a long track record of misusing statistics when it comes to the benefits system.
The report showed that ‘more than 50% of decisions on entitlement are made on the basis of the claim form alone, without any additional corroborating medical evidence’.
This is despite claims by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) that its own statistics show that 90% of claims for DLA are backed up by medical evidence and assessment.
This was used as one of their key reasons for reassessing thousands of people on the DLA benefit for the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefit instead.The Department has admitted that these statistics are ‘ambiguous and had not been rechecked by the Department’s analysts as is the usual practice’.
I’m probably stating the obvious, but the fallacy in the terms of the consultation is that they are moving from ‘PIP is intended to reflect extra costs’ to ‘PIP is intended literally to pay for the costs of buying the aids or appliances needed to satisfy the assessment’.
5.2 The activities have been selected to cover the key activities that are essential to everyday life, cumulatively providing a good proxy for individuals’ levels of participation. They cover a cross-section of the key skills and actions that individuals need on a daily basis – such as dexterity, bending, reaching, decision making etc.
What I think has really happened is that the new face to face assessment with regular reviews has identified far more need than they had assumed was really there.
This has the potential to be really, really, bad. Seems to be that they are inclining toward a view whereby the use of, or availability of and aid or appliance actually allows them to disregard the disability itself.
It also begs the question - if the need for an aids or appliance is a poor measure of ‘the additional costs that prevent disabled people from participating fully in every day life’ - on what basis do DWP argue that the other descriptors are better at measuring additional costs?
It simply illustrates that a functional test, as a proxy for measuring additional costs, is no better than DLA was (or the WCA is of measuring ‘capacity for work’) and that the design of PIP was fundementaly flawed in terms of the stated policy objective from day one. Further, it illustrates that the only real policy objective was to cut the cost of disability benefits (and an acknowlegment that it is already failing in that objective).
It must be assumed that the intention is to amend the PIP regs. ahead of the migration of significant numbers of existing DLA recipients.
I can’t help but think it’s kind of funny. Peter is absolutely right; DWP thought they would insulate themselves from the rogue judiciary at the UT. We’ve proved them wholly wrong within 18 months of the scheme opening and now they are rolling back while the draughtsman who used the term “device” restrictively is dreading the imminent prospect of having to claim UC.
Viewed through one prism it’s an epic win for us, the Secretary of State will be mumbling quietly about this in meetings while staring attentively at his shoes… again! It might not be an almighty cock up akin to UC but cock up it is.
It might not be an almighty cock up akin to UC but cock up it is.
DLA, introduced by a Tory government (allbeit the orignial case of amalgamating existing benefits with knobs on to look like the reform was greater than the practice), had to be replaced by PIP by a Tory govt. because it wasn’t ‘fit for purpose’ and the replacement is already shown to be not ‘fit for purpose’, at least in part, on their own admission.
Dan, I’d suggest the level of failed/failing welfare reform policies this illustrates is close to an almighty cock up!
Discussion for a Friday afternoon - what is the grade of cock up below an ‘almighty’? Suggestion: an IDS cock up - I claim the prize!!
I agree with you all but whichever way they dress it up this is just part of the £12bn cuts. PIP was supposed to knock 20% off the DLA budget and to date that has been achieved. This is intended to knock a few more percentage points off and save a few hundred million more. It will be interesting to see if HCPs (or Tribunals) do start to award points for prompting and assistance more often as a result as Mr Finch suggests they might but HCPs are pretty hamstrung by the DWP guidance. If this is an epic win Dan it feels like a pretty hollow victory.
The DWP has annouced details of a series of stakeholder consultation events:
London – 11 January 2016
Cardiff – 15 January 2016
Birmingham – 18 January 2016
Leeds – 22 January 2016
Edinburgh – 25 January 2016
More info @ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/personal-independence-payment-aids-and-appliances-descriptors
The DWP has annouced details of a series of stakeholder consultation events:
London – 11 January 2016
Cardiff – 15 January 2016
Birmingham – 18 January 2016
Leeds – 22 January 2016
Edinburgh – 25 January 2016More info @ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/personal-independence-payment-aids-and-appliances-descriptors
I may take a couple of crates of rotting veg to the Birmingham event. I will be on the train so the stocks are a bit cumbersome but if anyone fancies giving me a lift?
If we understand a “stakeholder” to be someone holding a stake, would anyone care to donate their stake for driving through IDS’ heart?
On second thoughts, he doesn’t have one, does he?
at paragraph 9 of this the dwp say dwp doctors reviewed a sample of 105 claimants awarded pip due to aids and appliances points only and the result of ths review is these claimants are unlikely to have significant disability related costs.
have they released this review?
Not to my knowledge. The basis of the DWPs arguments (inc. that undisclosed, statistically meaningless sample) is wholly disingenuous. Sir Humphrey would be proud of their effort!