Better Benefit ‘Work’ Tests

posted: 24/11/2010

The government has said it will overhaul its controversial medical tests to decide whether the seriously ill and disabled can claim long-term sickness benefits. An independent review found they were "impersonal, mechanistic and lacked empathy", leaving many claimants feeling unjustly treated and distressed.
 

The review, conducted by the academic Malcolm Harrington, an occupational health specialist, looked at whether the 'working capability assessment' was a fair system. There is mounting evidence that people with serious illnesses, like HIV, are being judged fit for work, when they are not. 40% of people who appeal, win their appeals.
 

Testing 94,000 people a month
The tests, first introduced in October 2008, mean 53,000 people are assessed a month for 'employment and support allowance'. The numbers being tested will balloon from next April as another 41,000 incapacity benefit recipients are re-assessed under the ‘work capability assessment’ every month.
 

Long-term ill and disabled somehow pass ‘work’ tests
Harrington found that the assessments, run by a French multinational, Atos Origin, which received £54m from the coalition government for the contract, failed people with mental illnesses and long-term disabilities.
 

‘Impossible’ 28 page form
One form which claimants needed to complete is 28 pages long and almost half the people "found the questionnaire difficult or impossible to complete".
 

Another problem is that people’s ability to work is measured by a computer questionnaire that uses "descriptors" - questions that are apparently unrelated to work. One example is that people are asked whether they had "loaded a dishwasher or washing machine" that day. "It does not bother to ask whether the claimant has a dishwasher or washing machine. That is the danger with computer systems and drop-down menus," said Harrington.
 

Another question asks if you sit and watch TV. Say yes and they assume you can sit for long periods in a chair.
 

"We want to rely much more on healthcare professionals and assessments., said Harrison..

He pointed out that 40% of those found fit for work by the system appealed and won – and added that most people who appealed provided "additional medical information".
 

Radical change needed
Harrington called for a radical overhaul, with jobcentre staff having to take into account health records, the Atos assessments and an individual's own testimony before making a decision about whether someone on sickness benefits should be forced back into work.
 

At present benefits staff rarely dissented from Atos's verdict, he said, and "a lack of procedural justice can lead people to feel embittered and for some this can lead to psychological distress with affects on physical and mental health".
 

Champions to help
The report also recommends the appointment of lay "champions" to guide claimants through the process, and detailed explanations of why a benefit has been refused.
 

Welcome for review
Many working with the poor and vulnerable welcomed the report, saying it was a long overdue recognition of the system's problems. Citizens Advice said its surveys showed a 41% increase in complaints from claimants in the past year alone.

NAT, National AIDS Trust welcomed the findings and recommendations. They say ‘we fully support the call for change to ‘improve the fairness and effectiveness of the WCA’ by improving transparency, empathy and communication within the assessment process for Employment Support Allowance (ESA)’. NAT were among the 400 organisations and individuals to contribute to the independent review, based on their research report Unseen disability, Unmet needs – A review of the impact of Work Capability Assessment on people living with HIV. Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT (National AIDS Trust), said: ‘NAT supports the recommendations of the independent review and we were extremely pleased to see some of our concerns included in the final report.

Government to make all the changes

The government said it accepted Harrington's conclusions and would implement them in full. The work and pensions minister Chris Grayling said: "There were no targets or goals to get people off benefits. This is meant to be a fair process … we are dealing with claimants who we have had very little contact with."
 

Reform delay criticised

However, Harrington did criticise the government for failing to implement a key recommendation quickly enough: that of a "personalised summary of assessments in plain English" to be produced by Atos. The government could only promise that ministers "explored the feasibility of providing a summary" by the end of 2011. Given the planned expansion in the scheme next year, Harrington said, this "was just not good enough".
 

Charities said the "review pinpoints what is wrong with the system". Matthew Lester of the Papworth Trust, a disability charity, said the main concern now was how quickly the government would implement the report's main findings. "Even if they get the main points implemented by April that will mean another 250,000 people being assessed by a system that we already know is unfair."

NAT report

Source (adapted)

Council HIV Homeless Threat

posted: 16/12/2008

The recent House of Lords ruling on the rights of destitute asylum seekers to minimal food and accommodation, is causing problems for Newcastle upon Tyne city council.

Instead of carefully reviewing each of the 118 people (17 with HIV) to make sure they fit the new rules from the House of Lords, Newcastle council, in Northeast England, seems to be using the court case as an excuse to save money by making people both homeless and hungry.

With expert advice and advocacy, George House Trust can see no good reason why anyone with HIV should lose all local authority housing and support. Anyone who might be made homeless can claim instead from the UK Borders Agency.

The local newspaper reports that up to 80 adults with special needs in Newcastle are in danger of losing their council-funded accommodation following a legal ruling. Attempts will be made to find alternative housing, but some could end up destitute.
 

Newcastle City Council’s adult services is supporting 118 refused asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act of 1948 with accommodation and subsistence, at a cost of £789,370 last year. The people are all single adults who have been refused asylum and whose appeal rights are exhausted. They are prohibited from working and have no entitlement to public funds, but have additional needs.

17 living with HIV threatened
The group includes 63 people with mental health problems, 17 who are HIV positive and 38 with physical ailments or disabilities.
 

The issue has resulted from a legal ruling involving an asylum seeker from Zimbabwe who is HIV positive. The man, who lives in Slough, gets NHS treatment but needed somewhere to live. Slough Council refused to provide him with accommodation and said he was able to look after himself. After years of legal wrangling, the council won only part of its case at the House of Lords.
 

The ruling means failed asylum seekers living in council-funded accommodation in Newcastle may no longer be entitled to support. Some have been housed and supported, as is their legal right, for more than four years. Cathy Bull, head of Newcastle adult social services, said: “The recent House of Lords decision has very significant implications on the support local authorities across the country are allowed to offer failed asylum seekers. We have sought legal advice and have been told that we have no choice but to comply with the decision. People who do not meet the new criteria will be given six weeks notice that their subsistence payments will cease and their accommodation withdrawn. Every possible step will be taken to minimise the impact of this decision both on affected people and on the city.”
 

George House Trust comment
Supporting vulnerable refused asylum seekers living with HIV by providing basic accommodation and food, is a legal right under the National Assistance Act 1948. The House of Lords has simply clarified the amount of care and attention someone needs to get council help. Slough Council lost its main argument that ‘care and attention’ means someone needs personal or nursing care in their own home. The House of Lords instead made things easier for people – you only need to show you need some help looking after yourself. Newcastle council seems to be scare mongering and trying to save itself more than three quarters of a million pounds.

We think people with HIV should have no fear – properly made claims should all be allowed.

Expert guidance

We’ve got the answers any council needs on how it should properly deal with these reviews, on the front page of our website in the Information Bank - Housing and support for HIV-positive asylum seekers.
 

Source