DS Forums

 
 

Government hid reports on the deaths of benefit claimants from independent expert


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-12-2016, 15:20
Richievilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,137
The two vile companies atos & capita have certainly benefited from the misery heaped upon the sick and disabled by this government.

Here
Atos and Capita have been feasting at the corporate welfare trough, although sadly several parts of the media still don't seem to have grasped the fact that PIP is not a fit for work benefit.
Re the actual fitness for work tests, Maximus have been feasting at the same corporate welfare trough with the new contract giving them Ł190 per assessment (a 65% increase on the previous Atos contract).
All the while, none of these companies managed to hit their agreed performance standards and ESA claimants saw their payments either frozen or decreasing in real terms, not to mention the callous and counterproductive WRAG cuts coming next year. Hundreds of thousands who need adapted housing cannot get the help they need and the social care crisis is hitting hard. The government even tried to claim we are world leaders when our spending (compared to GDP) is less than the OECD average.
Richievilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-12-2016, 15:30
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
The next step will be the DWP instructing doctors not to issue sick notes...

Oh, it's already happening.

"Seriously ill man dies after the DWP wrote to his GP telling them not to issue sick notes.

Declared fit for work under the DWP’s hated Work Capability Assessment scheme, James Harrison repeatedly asked his GP to issue a ‘fit note’ declaring him unfit to work. Despite repeated appointments (and as many refusals), his GP consistently declined to issue one.

Despite having been in regular contact with his GP, Harrison didn’t know why his GP wouldn’t issue a note.

The DWP had declared him fit for work and wrote to his GP telling him to stop issuing fit notes, and the GP duly complied.

Neither informed James Harrison of this. The patient. The chronically-sick man who endured both numerous, seemingly pointless visits to his GP to ask for something his GP wasn’t going to provide. That his GP knew they weren’t going to provide. That the DWP had expressly asked that doctor not to provide, despite the patient having serious medical conditions. Conditions that resulted in his death ten months later, at the age of 55."

http://evolvepolitics.com/seriously-...ue-sick-notes/
And as the letter says, there’s no longer any requirement to provide a fit note unless the claimant appeals the decision, or their medical condition worsens or they have a new medical condition.
It has long been(certainly more than 10 years) the case that the DWP would only act on sick notes in certain circumstances. The long-standing rules that a new claim would only be accepted after a period of 6 months from the original decision, unless there was a worsening of the situation. Once the appeal process is started you can get sick notes to cover you for the duration. You can even get the GP to give the start date as being the start of when you were disallowed ESA. You are then covered for the WHOLE period and get ESA at the assessment rate and other benefits until after the appeal Tribunal hearing. If the appeal goes against you, there is still a method of delaying having to do all the JSA commitments for a period of 3 months, which probably is long enough for you to be eligible to claim ESA again.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:32
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
They haven't done all the recommendations.

Why you defend Capita and ATOS, when their record of quality is very poor, bemuses me.
It is Maximus that does the ESA assessments.

Which of the REVIEW recommendations haven't they done?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:39
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
It has long been(certainly more than 10 years) the case that the DWP would only act on sick notes in certain circumstances. The long-standing rules that a new claim would only be accepted after a period of 6 months from the original decision, unless there was a worsening of the situation. Once the appeal process is started you can get sick notes to cover you for the duration. You can even get the GP to give the start date as being the start of when you were disallowed ESA. You are then covered for the WHOLE period and get ESA at the assessment rate and other benefits until after the appeal Tribunal hearing. If the appeal goes against you, there is still a method of delaying having to do all the JSA commitments for a period of 3 months, which probably is long enough for you to be eligible to claim ESA again.
That is incorrect, during the assessment phase, the claimant requires a fit note to cover all periods of the ESA claim up until the WCA.

"Once the appeal process is started you can get sick notes to cover you for the duration."

Unless the DWP have written to the doctor instructing him/her not to write a sick note.

Why are you defending this abhorrent behaviour?
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:41
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,237
It is Maximus that does the ESA assessments.

Which of the REVIEW recommendations haven't they done?
I was meaning PIP.
CELT1987 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:44
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Which of the REVIEW recommendations haven't they done?
That's the whole point, how can an expert make accurate recommendations when the government purposely withholds vital information regarding the deaths of vulnerable claimants?
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:46
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
That's the whole point, how can an expert make accurate recommendations when the government purposely withholds vital information regarding the deaths of vulnerable claimants?
They can't be accused of withholding info that doesn't exist in the first place. And if the info did exist it would be totally irrelevant to any review.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:50
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
They can't be accused of withholding info that doesn't exist in the first place. And if the info did exist it would be totally irrelevant to any review.
"A response from the Department of Work and Pensions to a Freedom of Information request indicates that mandatory peer reviews into the deaths of vulnerable claimants were withheld from Professor Malcolm Harrington, who was commissioned to write a report into the work capability assessment."

How are the deaths of vulnerable ESA claimants irrelevant in this case? The information did exist and was withheld during a review.
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:58
ShaunIOW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,811
So what? They got paid whatever the outcome of any assessment.
They didn't complete the assessments properly, they took shortcuts and cost cutting measures meaning a lot of assesement results were overturned on appeal costing the taxpayer even more money, but you won't find many Tories who are critical as the scheme has achieved it's main aim of transferring public money into private bank accounts.
ShaunIOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:01
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
They would have to collect complicated and subjective data, just to produce yet more nonsensical figures. If the figures are so important, why didn't Labour introduce anything?
It is not subjective to collect data on where people are 3 months later registered homeless, in a residential care home, in hospital, dead with cause of death.

It is also not subjective to have coroners notify and a national count kept of deaths where disability welfare changes or assessment system or sanctions system has been given by the coroner as a contributing factor to cause of death.
The recommendations of the INDEPENDENT reviews have largely been implemented
The allegation in the OP is the DWP did not share relevant evidence with the independent reviewer. Not all the recommendations have been done and the independent reviewer left under the cloud of growing disagreement with the government.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:06
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
"A response from the Department of Work and Pensions to a Freedom of Information request indicates that mandatory peer reviews into the deaths of vulnerable claimants were withheld from Professor Malcolm Harrington, who was commissioned to write a report into the work capability assessment."

How are the deaths of vulnerable ESA claimants irrelevant in this case? The information did exist and was withheld during a review.
All the DWP has is the date of death. On its own, that info has no meaning that can be attributed to it.

This statistical release provides information on those who have died after claiming Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) in Great Britain in response to a number of Freedom of Information requests. This publication supplies the exact figures asked for in those requests, as well as further commentary on the appropriate use of this information.
...
Any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics. Additionally, these isolated figures provide limited scope for analysis and nothing can be gained from this publication that would allow the reader to form any judgement as to the effects or impacts of the Work Capability Assessment. However, the combination of an historical time series and comparable rates in the related statistical publication on mortality rates for out-of-work working age benefit claimants1 allows users to analyse the information more easily and look at the longer term trends.
Total number of individuals with a WCA decision between 1 May 2010 and 28 February 2013 = 2,017,070 of which: Number who died within a year of that decision = 40,680.
Relevant statistics on those leaving ESA by ESA phase is only consistently available from December 2011. Whilst it is not possible to infer a trend from the two data points of 2012 and 2013, the publication shows that between 2008, when ESA was introduced, and 2013, the age-standardised mortality rate for those on incapacity benefits (IB/SDA and ESA) fell from 1,043 deaths per 100,000 people to 1,032 deaths per 100,000 people.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:09
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
It is not subjective to collect data on where people are 3 months later registered homeless, in a residential care home, in hospital, dead with cause of death.

It is also not subjective to have coroners notify and a national count kept of deaths where disability welfare changes or assessment system or sanctions system has been given by the coroner as a contributing factor to cause of death.

The allegation in the OP is the DWP did not share relevant evidence with the independent reviewer. Not all the recommendations have been done and the independent reviewer left under the cloud of growing disagreement with the government.
Even a coroners decision can be subjective. The info would then have to be fed back to the DWP. The indication are that mortality has gone DOWN.
Relevant statistics on those leaving ESA by ESA phase is only consistently available from December 2011. Whilst it is not possible to infer a trend from the two data points of 2012 and 2013, the publication shows that between 2008, when ESA was introduced, and 2013, the age-standardised mortality rate for those on incapacity benefits (IB/SDA and ESA) fell from 1,043 deaths per 100,000 people to 1,032 deaths per 100,000 people.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:14
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
All the DWP has is the date of death. On its own, that info has no meaning that can be attributed to it.
"Any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics."

A nice disclaimer from the DWP. The statistics you quote were published three years after Harrington's review.
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:20
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
"Any causal effect between benefits and mortality cannot be assumed from these statistics."

A nice disclaimer from the DWP. The statistics you quote were published three years after Harrington's review.
Which review? IIRC he did 3 years of them. So what where the comparable figures for 2009 and 2010?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:24
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
The indication are that mortality has gone DOWN.
No surprise considering that the Tories have been refusing to give ESA to terminally ill patients and writing to doctors instructing them not to issue fit notes so people cannot claim ESA in the first place. Fewer people deemed to be entitled to ESA, fewer ESA related deaths.
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:26
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
Even a coroners decision can be subjective. The info would then have to be fed back to the DWP. The indication are that mortality has gone DOWN.
Corners verdicts.

If the morality rate of those on incapacity benefits is declining that is probably a bad sign.
The implementation of, transfer of claims to, and changes to the assessment system of ESA has had the aim of retaining eligibility for the most vulnerable, the most disabled or most ill. Those who would have the highest mortality rate. While rejecting or getting off incapacity benefits the least disabled and least ill. Those who would have the lowest mortality rate.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:30
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
They can't be accused of withholding info that doesn't exist in the first place. And if the info did exist it would be totally irrelevant to any review.
Well as this points out about PIP, having the data and relaseing the data are not the same. She got caught out on this. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...ip-statistics/
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:33
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
No surprise considering that the Tories have been refusing to give ESA to terminally ill patients and writing to doctors instructing them not to issue fit notes so people cannot claim ESA in the first place. Fewer people deemed to be entitled to ESA, fewer ESA related deaths.
Where have they been refusing terminally ill patients?
The following is a list of the other circumstances in ESA that may result in a claimant being treated as having limited capability for work-related activity:
1. “The claimant is terminally ill”
...
4. “The claimant is-
(i) receiving treatment for cancer by way of chemotherapy or radiotherapy;
(ii) likely to receive such treatment within six months after the date of the determination of capability for work-related activity; or
(iii) recovering from such treatment,
and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity.”
In that example they were NOT eligible to reclaim ESA and ALSO wouldn't have been eligible to claim Incapacity Benefit when that existed. Nothing new. He died 10 months later, so not exactly a direct link is there. Within that 10 month period he could have claimed again.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:34
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Well as this points out about PIP, having the data and relaseing the data are not the same. She got caught out on this. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...ip-statistics/
"The lack of detailed PIP data published by DWP means it is impossible to compare the performance of Atos and Capita, which between them carry out all face-to-face assessments."

How convenient for the Tory government, ATOS and Capita. Just keep shovelling public cash in to their pockets with no recourse whatsoever.
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:37
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Within that 10 month period he could have claimed again.
Not when the DWP has instructed a doctor not to issue a fit note, the first step in an ESA claim is for the claimant's doctor to deem the claimant unfit for work by issuing a fit note. No fit note, no ESA claim.
Morlock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:39
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Well as this points out about PIP, having the data and relaseing the data are not the same. She got caught out on this. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...ip-statistics/
The thread is about ESA.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:45
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
I'm not a Tory but this was Labour policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

"The WCA was designed to be a key part of New Labour's welfare reforms. The plan was: to toughen up the test for sickness benefits; to use the WCA to re-evaluate more than two million established recipients; and to encourage all but the most severely disabled to find jobs instead of claiming out-of-work benefits."
..... made more callous by the Tories who have done nothing in the last six years to mitigate the issues, they have made them worse. Oh and please don't lead with "I'm not a Tory but....."
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:47
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Not when the DWP has instructed a doctor not to issue a fit note, the first step in an ESA claim is for the claimant's doctor to deem the claimant unfit for work by issuing a fit note. No fit note, no ESA claim.
As I have pointed out you have to wait 6 months before submitting a fresh ESA claim. That restriction was also there for Incapacity benefit, so NOTHING NEW. All he had to do was submit an appeal and sick notes would be accepted; or wait until 6 months after the original decision and submit a new claim; or submit a new claim with evidence of a change in medical condition. He didn't do any of those. That has been the situation since BEFORE 2008 and ESA.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:48
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
Which review? IIRC he did 3 years of them. So what where the comparable figures for 2009 and 2010?
Stop, just stop trying to defend this system. You don't know anything about it. Please don't say "but I work...." It's a crap argument, unless you have been on the end of it you should just stop defending it!
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:49
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
..... made more callous by the Tories who have done nothing in the last six years to mitigate the issues, they have made them worse. Oh and please don't lead with "I'm not a Tory but....."
What changes were made that "made them worse", that weren't suggested under Labour(ie Oct 2009) or by one of the independent reviews?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:12.