WCA failing people with mental health problems

Article in the Guardian which reports that a Maximus whistleblower has said:

People with mental health problems are still being wrongly assessed by a “severely flawed” system intended to find whether they are entitled to state help, according to a doctor who was charged with improving so-called “fit-for-work” tests.

The doctor, who did not want to be named, was employed by Maximus, the US company that took over the government’s controversial scheme to determine whether claimants are entitled to employment and support allowance in March 2015. He said that despite improvements to the system, some were still “falling through the net”.

Don’t think there’s anything to surprise us especially but confirms many suspicions.

Maximus fit-for-work tests fail mental health patients, says doctor

Maximus are at the next GMWRAG meeting in Bolton this Friday. Great opportunity to ask questions.

Here’s a controversial statement…

They’re much better than ATOS were, at least with my clients. I’ve seen a good few assessments now and they’ve not dropped the ball yet. Fair to say that I deal with the more severe end of the spectrum but all the same ATOS shocked me; they inspired me to go beyond the strict bounds of what I was employed to do.  I was gobsmacked how bad it got.

Maximus haven’t come up with any surprises… yet.

Not sure I’d go with “much” but I can see where you’re coming from.

It’s inevitably driven to some extent by the fact that the change of contractor means there has to be some demonstrable improvement else what was the change of provider for. I just think the bad stuff is a little more subtle rather than not there and there’s a lot of superficial stuff which looks good but is meaningless, like the recent thread on the videos on their site.

Certainly quality decision making is hamstrung by the use of software which is not fit for purpose but I’ve had plenty of reports of some fairly underhand stuff around HCPs. There’s certainly a significant increase in the stuff where claimants say “they put that I did this, and I did, but if they’d asked me then I’d have been able to put that in context”. Interesting example. Existing double top PIP client is deemed to not score points for understanding complex sentiments etc. any more based on the fact they received and read a text message during the consultation. Never put to client or discussed. Client can’t follow most texts but uses an app. which gives them simplified versions of those texts i.e. who from; what about and what needs to happen next or similar. Actually ignored message as they realised immediately they needed someone else to effectively explain it.

In any other context that’s a breach of natural justice. I’ve no problem with observations before a consultation either, but, they need to be discussed to ensure there’s no misunderstanding.

The increasing use of paramedics whose people skills might be entirely appropriate out in the field when faced with a crisis but in this context are far from appropriate (blunt, rude, challenging and downright offensive are words I’ve had so far) is also something I suspect which will come back and bite as the information recording looks suspect to me and steered by them effectively shouting down clients as to what’s relevant in their view or not. That will most likely end in the media at some point.