IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How does the government get its figures
Jayjay
post Oct 12 2010, 09:55 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



Having read in today's paper that the government are taking 500,000 people off disability benefits, I got to wondering how they arrived at this figure? If it is a researched figure, they know the people 'swinging the lead' and could save money by not testing the researched genuine sick. On the the other hand, if this figure was plucked out of thin air, how will it be implemented? Will the doctor testing have a target so he fails 2 in 10?

As far as I am aware, your GP or hospital consultant has to agree you are not fit for work to claim disability benefit. By employing independant testers, at great cost, is the government saying GP's are incapable?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Oct 15 2010, 10:41 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



Well I found out. The government are using an IT company to do health checks, the examiners have six weeks disability training and are paid £70 for each 'customer' the say is fit to work. So far they have been paid for returning to work terminal brain tumour patients, terminal cancer patients, MS, ME, Parkinsons, and blind people. Hospital consultants and GP notes are being ignored. These seriously sick people have to appeal (unsure of cost of this procedure) and then go back for another assessment at a further £700.

The IT company receive £700 for each customer. They will therefore receive £1,400,000,000 plus the restest money. The examiners will receive £350,000,000 for saying these people are fit for work.

The alternatives are to use professionals to do this work i.e the NHS, which would give them a big boost to their finances or to use the exisiting consultants notes for seriously sick people at a cost of £0.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 15 2010, 10:47 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



This is a big concern. There does have to be some reform, as the last Labour Government was soft on disability claimants. But what we need to ensure happens that any changes are fair and do not penalise innocent claimants.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_NWNREADER_*
post Oct 15 2010, 01:10 PM
Post #4





Guests






QUOTE (Jayjay @ Oct 15 2010, 11:41 AM) *
Well I found out. The government are using an IT company to do health checks, the examiners have six weeks disability training and are paid £70 for each 'customer' the say is fit to work. So far they have been paid for returning to work terminal brain tumour patients, terminal cancer patients, MS, ME, Parkinsons, and blind people. Hospital consultants and GP notes are being ignored. These seriously sick people have to appeal (unsure of cost of this procedure) and then go back for another assessment at a further £700.

The IT company receive £700 for each customer. They will therefore receive £1,400,000,000 plus the restest money. The examiners will receive £350,000,000 for saying these people are fit for work.

The alternatives are to use professionals to do this work i.e the NHS, which would give them a big boost to their finances or to use the exisiting consultants notes for seriously sick people at a cost of £0.


Where did you find this information?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Oct 15 2010, 03:00 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Oct 15 2010, 02:10 PM) *
Where did you find this information?


Got the name of the company, Atos, from a the Mail, then started reading users blogs on-line. There are some horror stories ranging from offices that are a distance from car parks, really helpful when you are dealing with disabled. Three hour delays in someone seeing these people are not unusual and have just read about a lady with lyphoma who has her breast and lymph glands removed very recently and obviously cannot use her arm, she was told she could get an office job
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_NWNREADER_*
post Oct 15 2010, 04:14 PM
Post #6





Guests






Well I suppose if it is in The Daily Mail and supported by user blogs it must be 100% true, accurate and unequivocal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Oct 15 2010, 08:44 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Oct 15 2010, 05:14 PM) *
Well I suppose if it is in The Daily Mail and supported by user blogs it must be 100% true, accurate and unequivocal.


It is the only information I can find that addresses the question. I think the 500,000 target is correct as it was also reported in the Telegraph. As to accuracy of the blogs, they detail people's experiences and views, and you have to take it at face value until proved wrong. One thing is startling, there is much less bitchiness on the disabled forum than on the Newbury forums.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_NWNREADER_*
post Oct 15 2010, 09:45 PM
Post #8





Guests






QUOTE (Jayjay @ Oct 15 2010, 09:44 PM) *
It is the only information I can find that addresses the question. I think the 500,000 target is correct as it was also reported in the Telegraph. As to accuracy of the blogs, they detail people's experiences and views, and you have to take it at face value until proved wrong. One thing is startling, there is much less bitchiness on the disabled forum than on the Newbury forums.

The number the Government have declared they feel do not need to be signed unfit to do any work is not in dispute. Those that can reasonably be said to be capable of work will transfer to Jobseekers Allowance and be expected to find work commensurate with their assessed ability. In some cases the total disability will be accepted without attending a review. In cases where the level of ability has to be assessed then there needs to be an assessment process. Otherwise the process will be flawed far worse than what might currently be so. perhaps the candidate should simply be asked if they can work?
I don't place much weight at all on the contents of social networks/twitter/blogs or any other unattributable source.
Common-interest forums rarely have disagreement. Perhaps I should have included a tongue-in-cheek smiley?
And to say the company is 'IT' is a bit like saying Camp Hopson is Newbury.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 15 2010, 09:46 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I didn't see NWNREADER's post as bitchy, I read that she was questioning the veracity of your sources. I checked the factoid about Atos being an IT company, and so they are, but that's not all they do, and Atos Healthcare do healthcare. That's just the kind of trick that I'd expect from the Hate Mail, so I'd say NWNREADER's was a good call. I suspect there may be good reasons why a disability forum would be less enquiring about criticism of the process.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 16 2010, 08:13 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



There is no doubt that the welfare state is too soft and reform is needed. Labour were far too soft. BUT, we can't penalise the people who are genuine claimants or have a system that puts them off claiming or leaves them feeling like a victim. What we need to do is focus on people we know who are borderline cases. Have an anonomous tip off line for people to report people they don't think should be entitled etc.

I know of a couple of genuine cases where the person involved can't work, but I know of a LOT of cases where people could do something for work. Let's not victimise all claimants at the expense of those people. What your "research" is pointing to Jay will be the genuine cases that feel hard done by, and rightly so. But without any checks, those who milk the state will get away with it. Maybe the Goverment should evaluate how these tests take place again (won't hold my breathe), but I believe testing of some sort will have to take place. My own party failed to carry out regular checks, and that can't be allowed to happen again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 16 2010, 08:36 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Jayjay @ Oct 12 2010, 10:55 PM) *
As far as I am aware, your GP or hospital consultant has to agree you are not fit for work to claim disability benefit. By employing independant testers, at great cost, is the government saying GP's are incapable?


On this paragraph I agree. Your doctor is the best person to judge. To bypass him or her brings into the question their competence. If they can't be relied on then maybe the government should be investigating the doctors and not the disability claimants?

The other point is; when you hirer somebody to do a specific task, and you only get paid for completing that task (i.e. the more claimants you remove the more money you make), then the objective stops being the Claimants, but the financial rewards. That is why you are getting a lot of people challenging their decisions. I was told that those that are genuine will fight back, those that are not, won't. So from that point of view it is easy to just viciously cull.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 16 2010, 09:31 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Nobody is suggesting that GPs are incompetent, but there must be a wide latitude of opinion among them as to what constitutes fitness to work. I am sure there are quite a few of the old-school "pull yourself together" types among them.

By bringing testing under the umbrella of an independent agency, you are more likely to get consistency.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 16 2010, 09:39 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 16 2010, 10:31 AM) *
Nobody is suggesting that GPs are incompetent, but there must be a wide latitude of opinion among them as to what constitutes fitness to work. I am sure there are quite a few of the old-school "pull yourself together" types among them.

By bringing testing under the umbrella of an independent agency, you are more likely to get consistency.


Your own GP will know you better than anybody else. If he has been signing you off as unfit to work (or that you have a disability) and someone else comes in and questions that then they are also questioning the doctors diagnosis.

Bringing it under one umbrella when that umbrella's objective is financial must be questioned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Oct 17 2010, 01:22 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 16 2010, 09:13 AM) *
There is no doubt that the welfare state is too soft and reform is needed. Labour were far too soft. BUT, we can't penalise the people who are genuine claimants or have a system that puts them off claiming or leaves them feeling like a victim. What we need to do is focus on people we know who are borderline cases. Have an anonomous tip off line for people to report people they don't think should be entitled etc.

I know of a couple of genuine cases where the person involved can't work, but I know of a LOT of cases where people could do something for work. Let's not victimise all claimants at the expense of those people. What your "research" is pointing to Jay will be the genuine cases that feel hard done by, and rightly so. But without any checks, those who milk the state will get away with it. Maybe the Goverment should evaluate how these tests take place again (won't hold my breathe), but I believe testing of some sort will have to take place. My own party failed to carry out regular checks, and that can't be allowed to happen again.


Fully agree that tests have to be carried out but .... Take cancer patients, I think we will all agree that someone with cancer is unable to work, therefore why the cost of £700 to test them? Secondly the qualifications of the person testing - if you have a brain tumour, you dont go hospital and see a midwife. A great deal of money could be saved by target testing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roost
post Oct 17 2010, 04:56 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 31



QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 16 2010, 10:39 AM) *
Your own GP will know you better than anybody else. If he has been signing you off as unfit to work (or that you have a disability) and someone else comes in and questions that then they are also questioning the doctors diagnosis.

Bringing it under one umbrella when that umbrella's objective is financial must be questioned.


When did you last see your GP?

I've been fortunate enough to not have to attend mine for some 6 years now. I REALLY don't think they'll know me that well!!


--------------------
Roost

Welcome to the jungle....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 17 2010, 06:23 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Roost @ Oct 17 2010, 05:56 PM) *
When did you last see your GP?

I've been fortunate enough to not have to attend mine for some 6 years now. I REALLY don't think they'll know me that well!!

And you're claiming Incapacity Benefit?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 17 2010, 07:02 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Roost @ Oct 17 2010, 05:56 PM) *
When did you last see your GP?

I've been fortunate enough to not have to attend mine for some 6 years now. I REALLY don't think they'll know me that well!!



That is because you are not claiming incapacity benefit, but those who are would regularly see their doctor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 06:03 AM