This is a guest post by @MargoJMilne and originally appeared here.
Models. Not glamorous young men and women. Not scale representations of trains. But understandings of disability.
Models are simplified ways of describing systems: they help us understand what's going on, in a way that can influence social policy and public debate, and can also enable new and potentially more effective insights and methods of intervention,
So why am I telling you about them? Well, they've become very important in the welfare reform discussion.
In the Committee stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, the Government committed itself to the use of the social model of disability in the Bill. In the social model, disability arises from society's response to people with impairments. Physical, mental and sensory differences or impairments don't have to lead to disability unless society fails to react to them and include people regardless of their individual differences.
That puts the onus on society to make work, education etc accessible for disabled people. Disabled young people have just as high aspirations as their able-bodied peers, but are 2½ times as likely to be out of work, and those in work earn 11% less.
But earlier this week, when the Bill was being discussed in the House of Lords, Lord Freud announced that the Government had decided that the Bill should be based on the biopsychosocial model of disability instead. This model claims that biological, psychological and social factors all play a part in human functioning, in the context of disease or illness.
The biological component of the theory comes, clearly, from within the individual's body. The psychological part encompasses thoughts, emotions and behaviour, and looks for potential causes of a health problem such as lack of self-control, emotional turmoil, and negative thinking. The social part investigates how different social factors such as socioeconomic status, culture and technology can influence health.
A lot of its application is in illness behaviour. When someone becomes ill, they get certain rights (eg they don't have to work) but also certain responsibilities (eg they have to do what their doctor says and do their best to get well).
All sounds very sensible. Things worth taking into account. So what's the problem? Why am I writing a blog post about it all?
Well, for one, the biopsychosocial model is about health and illness, not about impairment and disability. It has nothing to say to the situation of someone who was, for instance, born with cerebral palsy. Even for the majority of us with long-term illnesses, "illness behaviour" is mainly irrelevant: we're not going to get better, no matter how hard we try.
Obviously some of us are going to recover, go back to work, lead normal lives again. That's wonderful. But many of us are not. I have progressive MS. I'm not going to be getting better - I'm going to get worse, and there is absolutely no way I'm fit to work at present.
But because the government has chosen the biopsychosocial model, there's a very real risk that after a year I'll be forced onto Jobseeker's Allowance: and face having it removed if I don't turn up for interviews because I'm unable to get out of bed. Or even, maybe, get a job, somehow (given the current climate), and get sacked because I fall asleep uncontrollably at my desk.
So, models. They're useful things, but they're kind of like jigsaw pieces. You can't just ram one in where you'd like it to go, and hope nobody'll notice - a bit of sky in the middle of the green grass, that sort of thing. The model has to fit. And the biopsychosocial model just doesn't.
PS I didn't want to make this post too long, so I'm stopping there, with models. It's very much worth your time reading up on the dubious nature of the DWP's links with the Unum Research Centre at Cardiff University, though. This is a good place to start.
Campaigning against the government's distressing war on disabled benefit claimants. All posts represent the opinions of their respective authors and not WtB as a whole.
Showing posts with label dla reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dla reform. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Monday, 16 January 2012
The Big Guns...
Clearly the government are worried enough about tomorrow's DLA vote to call their buddy Rupert to get him to spin some propaganda.
This article is in today's Sun. It's almost all bollocks, of course.
What's wrong with that? Given that almost one in 5 people have some kind of impairment I'd say that's pretty good. Yes I know that with the DLA criteria being very specific a lot of disabled people aren't eligible. But still, if nearly 1 in 5 are disabled and only 1 in 17 are getting DLA; that would suggest that there are probably some people not getting it who should be.
And how many people become eligible every week? Children who were born with conditions like cerebral palsy or osteogenesis imperfecta reaching the minimum age. People developing cancer. People falling off roofs and breaking their backs. People losing their leg in a motorbike crash. People at the upper end of the the "under 65" age limit developing arthritis or Wet AMD. Disabled people die more often than non-disabled people, but the numbers are increasing due to more people joining our team than leaving it. I can easily believe there are 1000 new disabled people a week.
It's really so hard for Graeme Wilson to comprehend that with around 18% of the population being disabled, that one third of those people will meet the DLA criteria?
There are several reasons for this. Mainly medical advances. There are many medical conditions that, 20 years ago, were a death sentence. HIV, many cancers and a most muscle-wasting conditions claimed a lot more lives in 1992 than they do today. But just because people with these conditions are living longer doesn't mean they're cured; they're just pootling along, still impaired, for much longer. A decline in the death rate of disabled people will result in a higher number of claimants because the people becoming impaired isn't matched by the number of impaired people dying.
There is also an element of increased social tolerance towards disability. Yes there are still people that would rather be housebound than apply for DLA which would allow them to get out just because they're embarrassed to admit to being disabled. But for the most part, removing some of our culture's shaming of impairment has made many more people "come out" about having an impairment so they're more inclined to want to claim the DLA that will allow them to partake in life than stay at home feeling embarrassed about not living up to our society's ideals.
But what about how much DLA saves on: NHS bills, social care bills, care home costs. And then there's the amount of DLA that gets put back into the economy because of people spending it on a Motability car (and the petrol to run it), on ready meals and takeaways when they can't cook, on adaptive equipment...
(And then there's the fact that if the transport budget was bigger we might have a slightly more functional train network...)
I don't see how the Sun can think that taking DLA from half a million genuinely disabled people like me is a source of pride. But it's not like News International are known for their morality.
Well, they will hit disabled children. You see, disabled children have this unfortunate habit of growing up into disabled adults. The only disabled pensioners that get DLA in the first place are the ones who became impaired before the age of 65 (over 65s have to apply for Attendance Allowance instead). The under 65s who get shafted by the DLA to PIP change will, eventually, become pensioners just like those disabled children will become disabled adults.
Bollocks.
Tackled this one last night But in summary: There's such a thing as an incurable condition.
Even if this was true, would it justify so gleefully removing all support from half a million disabled people?
Again, as I explained last night: It's £220 million lost to overpayments. But of that, only £60 million is lost to fraud (and failing to report a change in circumstances if you've gotten better would count as fraud). The rest is lost to error. And if the DWP are making decisions more often by calling people in for more frequent reviews then you're increasing the opportunities for them to make mistakes.
This article is in today's Sun. It's almost all bollocks, of course.
ONE in every 17 people in Britain will be on disability benefits in three years' time, shock figures show.
What's wrong with that? Given that almost one in 5 people have some kind of impairment I'd say that's pretty good. Yes I know that with the DLA criteria being very specific a lot of disabled people aren't eligible. But still, if nearly 1 in 5 are disabled and only 1 in 17 are getting DLA; that would suggest that there are probably some people not getting it who should be.
The number of claimants will soar by 1,000 every WEEK to 3.5million by 2015 unless there is urgent reform.
And how many people become eligible every week? Children who were born with conditions like cerebral palsy or osteogenesis imperfecta reaching the minimum age. People developing cancer. People falling off roofs and breaking their backs. People losing their leg in a motorbike crash. People at the upper end of the the "under 65" age limit developing arthritis or Wet AMD. Disabled people die more often than non-disabled people, but the numbers are increasing due to more people joining our team than leaving it. I can easily believe there are 1000 new disabled people a week.
That's six per cent of the entire population getting Disability Living Allowance — meant for those with problems so severe they need care or help walking.
It's really so hard for Graeme Wilson to comprehend that with around 18% of the population being disabled, that one third of those people will meet the DLA criteria?
Already the number on DLA has TREBLED from 1.1million at its launch in 1992.
There are several reasons for this. Mainly medical advances. There are many medical conditions that, 20 years ago, were a death sentence. HIV, many cancers and a most muscle-wasting conditions claimed a lot more lives in 1992 than they do today. But just because people with these conditions are living longer doesn't mean they're cured; they're just pootling along, still impaired, for much longer. A decline in the death rate of disabled people will result in a higher number of claimants because the people becoming impaired isn't matched by the number of impaired people dying.
There is also an element of increased social tolerance towards disability. Yes there are still people that would rather be housebound than apply for DLA which would allow them to get out just because they're embarrassed to admit to being disabled. But for the most part, removing some of our culture's shaming of impairment has made many more people "come out" about having an impairment so they're more inclined to want to claim the DLA that will allow them to partake in life than stay at home feeling embarrassed about not living up to our society's ideals.
It now costs the taxpayer an eye-watering £12.6billion a year — the same as the entire budget for the Department for Transport.
But what about how much DLA saves on: NHS bills, social care bills, care home costs. And then there's the amount of DLA that gets put back into the economy because of people spending it on a Motability car (and the petrol to run it), on ready meals and takeaways when they can't cook, on adaptive equipment...
(And then there's the fact that if the transport budget was bigger we might have a slightly more functional train network...)
Ministers will spell out plans in the House of Lords tomorrow to bring in a new system to cut the number of 16 to 64-year-olds on the allowance from 2.2million to 1.7million.
I don't see how the Sun can think that taking DLA from half a million genuinely disabled people like me is a source of pride. But it's not like News International are known for their morality.
Changes won't hit disabled children and pensioners.
Well, they will hit disabled children. You see, disabled children have this unfortunate habit of growing up into disabled adults. The only disabled pensioners that get DLA in the first place are the ones who became impaired before the age of 65 (over 65s have to apply for Attendance Allowance instead). The under 65s who get shafted by the DLA to PIP change will, eventually, become pensioners just like those disabled children will become disabled adults.
Under current rules, thousands can get DLA without seeing a doctor and by simply filling out a form.
Bollocks.
There is also no system for checking that existing claimants are still entitled to the cash.
Minister for Disabled People Maria Miller plans to replace DLA with PIP — Personal Independence Payment.
Claimants will have a face-to-face assessment before getting cash and regular check-ups.
Tackled this one last night But in summary: There's such a thing as an incurable condition.
Ministers say MORE disabled people will actually get the highest payments under the new system.
Even if this was true, would it justify so gleefully removing all support from half a million disabled people?
Mrs Miller said: "With DLA there are hundreds of millions of pounds of overpayments. The vast majority of people get it for life. Under PIP, support will be focused on those who need it most."
Again, as I explained last night: It's £220 million lost to overpayments. But of that, only £60 million is lost to fraud (and failing to report a change in circumstances if you've gotten better would count as fraud). The rest is lost to error. And if the DWP are making decisions more often by calling people in for more frequent reviews then you're increasing the opportunities for them to make mistakes.
The Good, the Bad and the unnecessarily expensive
A new Comment is Free piece by former Tory MP Paul Goodman appeared online this evening, in which he tried to justify taking money from disabled people and giving it to a company like Atos instead.
He starts out pretending that he might actually live up to his surname and feigning concern for his old constituents. In paragraph number 5 he even uses some actual facts:
You can tell he's no longer in office, can't you? If a current MP told the truth about benefits so brazenly Cameron would probably have him bent over his lap, bullwhip in hand, faster than one can say "calm down dear".
The article was clearly an attempt at something of a con. Obviously his thought process was "if you start with the facts people will think you're an honest writer. So then when you slip some bullcrap in 2 thirds of the way through, they'll have built the perception that you're an honest kinda guy and won't bother checking any more."
That's when it goes to shit.
You know what, I'm gonna take this one sentence at a time.
This is actually pretty true. The fraud rate for DLA is, as he has already pointed out, 0.5%. The rate of customer error is 0.6% and the rate of DWP error is 0.8% (see table on page 12 of this DWP report), so it is the DWP doing the bulk of the ballsing up.
This could possibly be true too. Haven't got the figures to hand, it's gone midnight and I want to go to bed at some point tonight so I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt. Next!
Here's where he tried to resort to a bit of semantic trickery. You see; if an award was made correctly at the time it was awarded, it's not error. If the recipient's circumstances change and they fail to notify the DWP then that's fraud. He is trying to imply that the fraud rate is greater than it is by trying to paint it as appearing in the "error" column.
If you go back to the document I linked to already you'll see that, actually, it's 2.2 hundreds of millions of pounds. The DLA spend is £12bn meaning the overall overpayment rate is 1.9%
He claims that regular reviews would stop people from getting overpaid if they get better. Apparently no-one told him that an incurable condition is for life, not just for Christmas. Do you think he knows many people with cerebral palsy who got miraculously cured? I wonder if his social circle is full of war veterans who lost limbs which then grew back? I know he sat on the opposite side of the house to them, but he must have crossed paths with them sometimes: Do you think he asks David Blunkett and Gordon Brown if their eyesight is getting better? And as it's something I have I'd be very curious to meet someone with magically vanishing osteogenesis imperfecta. One can only assume that Goodman believes that Lourdes actually works.
While the absence of regular reviews might result in a few people getting overpaid, it ultimately works out to the benefit of the taxpayer: You see, most people become more impaired over time; rather than less. But where progression is gradual people don't often notice it quite so keenly. And then there are those who did notice they'd gotten worse but are too scared to call the DWP in case an overzealous Atos assessor comes and takes all their DLA despite them being eligible for an even higher rate.
Today @spoonydoc tweeted the following (and she's proper clever, she wrote the Spartacus Report):
So not only would the government find themselves shelling out more on people that had become more impaired but wouldn't have reported it, they'll also be haemorrhaging money to pay for these new reviews. Mr Badman says "but ducking decisions simply because constituents won't like them is scarcely a noble motive." I concur: But I also think that wanting to stump up more money for no other reason than to persecute disabled people is a rather overpriced way of proving that he is an odious little man.
He starts out pretending that he might actually live up to his surname and feigning concern for his old constituents. In paragraph number 5 he even uses some actual facts:
The problem with DLA isn't that it traps disabled people on benefits – its purpose is to support the care and mobility needs of disabled people, whether they work or not. Nor is the key issue fraud – which is proportionately tiny: a mere 0.5%.
You can tell he's no longer in office, can't you? If a current MP told the truth about benefits so brazenly Cameron would probably have him bent over his lap, bullwhip in hand, faster than one can say "calm down dear".
The article was clearly an attempt at something of a con. Obviously his thought process was "if you start with the facts people will think you're an honest writer. So then when you slip some bullcrap in 2 thirds of the way through, they'll have built the perception that you're an honest kinda guy and won't bother checking any more."
That's when it goes to shit.
But there is a real problem, and that is error. More than 70% of the current DLA caseload has an indefinite award. There is no effective means of ensuring these payments remain correct. Ministers claim there are hundreds of millions of pounds of overpayments.
You know what, I'm gonna take this one sentence at a time.
But there is a real problem, and that is error.
This is actually pretty true. The fraud rate for DLA is, as he has already pointed out, 0.5%. The rate of customer error is 0.6% and the rate of DWP error is 0.8% (see table on page 12 of this DWP report), so it is the DWP doing the bulk of the ballsing up.
More than 70% of the current DLA caseload has an indefinite award.
This could possibly be true too. Haven't got the figures to hand, it's gone midnight and I want to go to bed at some point tonight so I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt. Next!
There is no effective means of ensuring these payments remain correct.
Here's where he tried to resort to a bit of semantic trickery. You see; if an award was made correctly at the time it was awarded, it's not error. If the recipient's circumstances change and they fail to notify the DWP then that's fraud. He is trying to imply that the fraud rate is greater than it is by trying to paint it as appearing in the "error" column.
Ministers claim there are hundreds of millions of pounds of overpayments.
If you go back to the document I linked to already you'll see that, actually, it's 2.2 hundreds of millions of pounds. The DLA spend is £12bn meaning the overall overpayment rate is 1.9%
He claims that regular reviews would stop people from getting overpaid if they get better. Apparently no-one told him that an incurable condition is for life, not just for Christmas. Do you think he knows many people with cerebral palsy who got miraculously cured? I wonder if his social circle is full of war veterans who lost limbs which then grew back? I know he sat on the opposite side of the house to them, but he must have crossed paths with them sometimes: Do you think he asks David Blunkett and Gordon Brown if their eyesight is getting better? And as it's something I have I'd be very curious to meet someone with magically vanishing osteogenesis imperfecta. One can only assume that Goodman believes that Lourdes actually works.
While the absence of regular reviews might result in a few people getting overpaid, it ultimately works out to the benefit of the taxpayer: You see, most people become more impaired over time; rather than less. But where progression is gradual people don't often notice it quite so keenly. And then there are those who did notice they'd gotten worse but are too scared to call the DWP in case an overzealous Atos assessor comes and takes all their DLA despite them being eligible for an even higher rate.
Today @spoonydoc tweeted the following (and she's proper clever, she wrote the Spartacus Report):
DLA fraud:0.5% at £60mill PIP reassessments £300-500mill over 3 yrs. Cost saving or ideology?
So not only would the government find themselves shelling out more on people that had become more impaired but wouldn't have reported it, they'll also be haemorrhaging money to pay for these new reviews. Mr Badman says "but ducking decisions simply because constituents won't like them is scarcely a noble motive." I concur: But I also think that wanting to stump up more money for no other reason than to persecute disabled people is a rather overpriced way of proving that he is an odious little man.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
DLA reform and the Spartacus Report
This article was originally posted to FlashSays on 9 January 2012
Today on Twitter you will see many disabled people and charities saying “I support the #SpartacusReport”. So what is this report and what does it mean?
The Spartacus Report is a piece of research, released today, entitled “Responsible Reform”. It looks at responses to a government consultation about replacing Disability Living Allowance. The report was funded and written by disabled people, and we feel it belongs to us.
Disability Living Allowance is an essential payment, made to people with disabling conditions to compensate them for the additional costs of mobility, and/or care. It is paid whether or not the recipient is able to work, and in many cases makes the difference between being able to leave the house – and go to work – or being stuck at home. For more information on how essential DLA is to people, see my previous articles The real difference made by DLA and DLA – the gateway benefit.
In December 2010 the government opened a consultation on replacing DLA with the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). They had already said that 20% of DLA payments had to be cut, although the government’s own figures accepts that less than 1% of claims are fraudulent. So where would these cuts come from?
A response was published by Iain Duncan Smith, secretary of state for work and pensions, in April 2011. This document claimed to outline the responses of the consultation – from over 5000 individuals and 500 organisations – and the government’s reply to it. However, it glossed over the overwhelming opposition to the proposal of PIP.
Something had to be done. Sue Marsh (“suey2y”) and other disability campaigners joined forces. They came up with the “Spartacus report”. The Responsible Reform report gives the truth of the responses, having obtained copies of the organisations’ responses via a Freedom of Information request.
It shows that
• 92% of respondents opposed the proposal to change from 3 different levels of the Care component, to 2 levels
• 87% of respondents opposed the stopping of automatic entitlement to DLA
• 98% opposed changing the qualifying period from having the disabling condition for 3 months, to having it for 6 months before claiming
• 90% opposed the introduction of new face to face assessments
• 92% opposed change to the review system
• 88% said that aids that a person uses should not be considered when assessing them
• 88% opposed a new change-of-circumstance system involving sanctions
• 94% oppose the introduction of compulsory advice and support
• 64% said that one-off costs should be funded by DLA – it is not clear what this question actually involves
• 100% opposed the removal of DLA mobility component for residents of care homes, and the government have since rescinded this
• 99% oppose the removal or streamlining of passporting (i.e. using DLA as a gateway benefit to other services)
• 54% support the sharing of information between departments
In section after section, the conclusion is “The Government fails to respond to the concerns and suggestions of disabled people”.
It is clear that disabled people don’t want DLA to be overhauled or replaced with PIP, not because it isn’t working, but precisely because it is. The government needs to find the money to sustain DLA payments at their current rates, otherwise disabled people will be the ones who pay the price, by being stuck at home unable to afford transport costs, or lost without essential aids, unable to pay for the prepared food they need because they are unable to cook, or unable to fund the care they require. Please do read The real difference made by DLA in order to understand exactly what disabled people stand to lose. It’s more than just independence and dignity.
So what can you do about this? Read the report: Shortened Report - Responsible Reform and Shortened Press Release. If you’re on twitter, show your support using the #SpartacusReport hashtag. Contact your MP saying something like “This report into Disability Allowance Reform has been written, researched and funded by disabled people. As one of your constituents, I am very concerned by its findings and the misrepresentation of disabled people that it exposes. Please will you read the report and support sick and disabled people in calling for a pause to Personal Independence Payments in light of this new research. I look forward to your response.” You can contact your MP using the Write to them website.
Even if you are lucky enough not to be disabled yourself or have any disabled relatives, remember that disability can strike anyone. It is just one car crash, or stroke, or fall, away. One in two people will be disabled at some point in their lifetime. You too may find yourself dependent on disability benefits. Can you afford to ignore this report?
Today on Twitter you will see many disabled people and charities saying “I support the #SpartacusReport”. So what is this report and what does it mean?
The Spartacus Report is a piece of research, released today, entitled “Responsible Reform”. It looks at responses to a government consultation about replacing Disability Living Allowance. The report was funded and written by disabled people, and we feel it belongs to us.
Disability Living Allowance is an essential payment, made to people with disabling conditions to compensate them for the additional costs of mobility, and/or care. It is paid whether or not the recipient is able to work, and in many cases makes the difference between being able to leave the house – and go to work – or being stuck at home. For more information on how essential DLA is to people, see my previous articles The real difference made by DLA and DLA – the gateway benefit.
In December 2010 the government opened a consultation on replacing DLA with the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). They had already said that 20% of DLA payments had to be cut, although the government’s own figures accepts that less than 1% of claims are fraudulent. So where would these cuts come from?
A response was published by Iain Duncan Smith, secretary of state for work and pensions, in April 2011. This document claimed to outline the responses of the consultation – from over 5000 individuals and 500 organisations – and the government’s reply to it. However, it glossed over the overwhelming opposition to the proposal of PIP.
Something had to be done. Sue Marsh (“suey2y”) and other disability campaigners joined forces. They came up with the “Spartacus report”. The Responsible Reform report gives the truth of the responses, having obtained copies of the organisations’ responses via a Freedom of Information request.
It shows that
• 92% of respondents opposed the proposal to change from 3 different levels of the Care component, to 2 levels
• 87% of respondents opposed the stopping of automatic entitlement to DLA
• 98% opposed changing the qualifying period from having the disabling condition for 3 months, to having it for 6 months before claiming
• 90% opposed the introduction of new face to face assessments
• 92% opposed change to the review system
• 88% said that aids that a person uses should not be considered when assessing them
• 88% opposed a new change-of-circumstance system involving sanctions
• 94% oppose the introduction of compulsory advice and support
• 64% said that one-off costs should be funded by DLA – it is not clear what this question actually involves
• 100% opposed the removal of DLA mobility component for residents of care homes, and the government have since rescinded this
• 99% oppose the removal or streamlining of passporting (i.e. using DLA as a gateway benefit to other services)
• 54% support the sharing of information between departments
In section after section, the conclusion is “The Government fails to respond to the concerns and suggestions of disabled people”.
It is clear that disabled people don’t want DLA to be overhauled or replaced with PIP, not because it isn’t working, but precisely because it is. The government needs to find the money to sustain DLA payments at their current rates, otherwise disabled people will be the ones who pay the price, by being stuck at home unable to afford transport costs, or lost without essential aids, unable to pay for the prepared food they need because they are unable to cook, or unable to fund the care they require. Please do read The real difference made by DLA in order to understand exactly what disabled people stand to lose. It’s more than just independence and dignity.
So what can you do about this? Read the report: Shortened Report - Responsible Reform and Shortened Press Release. If you’re on twitter, show your support using the #SpartacusReport hashtag. Contact your MP saying something like “This report into Disability Allowance Reform has been written, researched and funded by disabled people. As one of your constituents, I am very concerned by its findings and the misrepresentation of disabled people that it exposes. Please will you read the report and support sick and disabled people in calling for a pause to Personal Independence Payments in light of this new research. I look forward to your response.” You can contact your MP using the Write to them website.
Even if you are lucky enough not to be disabled yourself or have any disabled relatives, remember that disability can strike anyone. It is just one car crash, or stroke, or fall, away. One in two people will be disabled at some point in their lifetime. You too may find yourself dependent on disability benefits. Can you afford to ignore this report?
#SpartacusReport Day 2
Yesterday was absolutely wonderful.
For the first time, we broke through and really found our voice. We trended No.1 on Twitter and kept trending at 2 throughout the day. The support from celebrities and journalists and other bloggers was humbling.
Today, we have a chance to really explain our issues, but despite our desperation and fear we MUST remember that our issues are new to most people. We must trust that the report has it's own strength.
It is backed by Disability Alliance, representing over 380 charities. Scope, Mind, RNIB, Sense, National Autistic Society, ME Action, Papworth Trust and many, many more endorse our report and share its concerns.
Politicans are supporting us. Lords are supporting us. We must give them every chance to hear our evidence and act on it.
The report raises some very serious issues and it is those issues we must explain.
Today, we ask anyone who read and was shocked by the #spartacusreport to wear this twibbon http://twibbon.com/join/spartacusreport and stand with the sick and disabled people of the UK have fought so very hard for this one chance to be heard. We only have a few more days. Lords return tomorrow and the issues we have raised for so long will face votes. If we work together, no matter how exhausted we are, no matter how frightened, we can say we did all we could to make our arguments eloquently, reasonably and most importantly - based on evidence. Evidence that has been painfully lacking in this debate so far.
Can we show today that we are an electorate? That we can be seen, that we can be heard. Every twibbon is a "vote" for the #spartacusreport
If you are sick and disabled wear the twibbon. If you realise that one day, at any moment, you too could face illness or disability and that our fight is your fight, please wear the
twibbon. If you are concerned at the lack of rigour and openness of our government, please wear the twibbon. If you want us to be heard, wear the twibbon.
Keep tweeting, keep sharing and trust that if we work together, we can be heard. Sick and Disabled people can speak for themselves and for the first time, the #spartacusreport allows us to do that. Take this opportunity, take this platform and use it wisely.
I am Spartacus, and I will keep trying everything I can to protect our futures.
Edited by Lisa to add: Kaliya's video...
Transcript below jump taken from http://benefitscroungingscum.blogspot.com/2012/01/message-from-kaliya-and-sue.html
For the first time, we broke through and really found our voice. We trended No.1 on Twitter and kept trending at 2 throughout the day. The support from celebrities and journalists and other bloggers was humbling.
Today, we have a chance to really explain our issues, but despite our desperation and fear we MUST remember that our issues are new to most people. We must trust that the report has it's own strength.
It is backed by Disability Alliance, representing over 380 charities. Scope, Mind, RNIB, Sense, National Autistic Society, ME Action, Papworth Trust and many, many more endorse our report and share its concerns.
Politicans are supporting us. Lords are supporting us. We must give them every chance to hear our evidence and act on it.
The report raises some very serious issues and it is those issues we must explain.
Today, we ask anyone who read and was shocked by the #spartacusreport to wear this twibbon http://twibbon.com/join/spartacusreport and stand with the sick and disabled people of the UK have fought so very hard for this one chance to be heard. We only have a few more days. Lords return tomorrow and the issues we have raised for so long will face votes. If we work together, no matter how exhausted we are, no matter how frightened, we can say we did all we could to make our arguments eloquently, reasonably and most importantly - based on evidence. Evidence that has been painfully lacking in this debate so far.
Can we show today that we are an electorate? That we can be seen, that we can be heard. Every twibbon is a "vote" for the #spartacusreport
If you are sick and disabled wear the twibbon. If you realise that one day, at any moment, you too could face illness or disability and that our fight is your fight, please wear the
twibbon. If you are concerned at the lack of rigour and openness of our government, please wear the twibbon. If you want us to be heard, wear the twibbon.
Keep tweeting, keep sharing and trust that if we work together, we can be heard. Sick and Disabled people can speak for themselves and for the first time, the #spartacusreport allows us to do that. Take this opportunity, take this platform and use it wisely.
I am Spartacus, and I will keep trying everything I can to protect our futures.
Edited by Lisa to add: Kaliya's video...
Transcript below jump taken from http://benefitscroungingscum.blogspot.com/2012/01/message-from-kaliya-and-sue.html
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
PIP
Last week Maria Miller - the minister for disabled people - said we needed welfare reform because "Well it can't be right that we have a benefits system where, under DLA, more people who are either alcoholics or drug addicts are in receipt of the higher rate of disability allowance than people who are blind."
The reason that more addicts will be getting High Rate Care (HRC) than blind people is because to get the higher rate care you have to need assistance 24 hours a day. Alcoholics will often need support during the night in case they end up so drunk they pass out and vomit. If someone passes out on their back and vomits they will aspirate their vomit and die so someone needs to be present to roll them into the recovery position if needed. Whereas blind people - unless they have additional medical complications - will typically sleep through the night. If they do have additional medical complications then they'll be the reason why they get HRC rather than the blindness. So that's why we have a system where more addicts get HRC than blind people.
The claim that Miller was trying to make in a roundabout way without actually saying so was that the welfare reforms are only going be targeting people with socially unacceptable impairments, by which I mean conditions that tabloid readers don't like, like alcoholism. She was trying claim, indirectly, that people with socially acceptable conditions will fare OK under welfare reform, that they'll protect the "most vulnerable."
I have osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). I've broken about 50 bones. OI is presumably one of the conditions Miller thinks the public finds socially acceptable so I would be one of the people that Miller was alluding to when she said that the most vulnerable would be protected. I get Disability Living Allowance. I get the high rate mobility (HRM) component and middle rate care (MRC) component.
I get HRM because I'm virtually unable to walk. I can walk a very short distance but only very slowly and with extreme pain and difficulty. My aforementioned osteogenesis means that a good many of my joints have been shattered so have extremely limited movement. The rest of my joints are held in place by tendons and ligaments of such poor quality that my 4kg cat can dislocate my knee by sitting on it. Because my tendons and ligaments don't do a good job of holding me up I fall over very easily, which is really not very safe in someone with brittle bones. Between the pain, the difficulty, the slowness and the danger involved in walking I'd be pretty much housebound without a wheelchair. I couldn't even walk as far as the bus stop at the top of my street (and it's a short street) before my knees had swollen up so much that I couldn't bend them for the rest of the day. My consultant orthopod has told me to walk less than the little bit I already do around the house because I'm causing permanent damage to my joints. I'm wearing them out and I'm only 32.
I then get MRC because I need constant supervision due to injuring easily. Activities during which I’ve broken bones include walking1, sleeping2 and eating3. So the government can't scrimp on my supervision by telling me to cut out risky activities cos, you know, eating and sleeping are essential for survival.
You'd think I'd be one of the people the government would consider "vulnerable," right?
Wrong.
Flicking through the draft criteria for DLA's replacement, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), it looks like in future I won't be getting a penny.
The mobility component will no longer be assessed on your ability to "walk", it will be assessed on your ability to "mobilise". The difference being that they'll consider your ability to get around using a wheelchair. And if you can get around using a wheelchair your benefit will be denied.
If you could use a wheelchair if only you owned one you'll be assessed using an "imaginary wheelchair". And if you can use said imaginary wheelchair you will be denied the benefit that would allow you to buy an actual wheelchair made of proper materials and not just Miller's fanciful thoughts.
Then there's the "Daily Living" component which will be assessed on the following criteria:
Notice how "needs supervision for safety reasons" has gone? Presumably so those addicts will lose the entitlement to supervision so they drown in their own vomit. But it'll also not only affect people like me who injure easily for physical reasons, it'll no doubt affect a huge number of people who currently get DLA due to mental health problems or conditions like epilepsy.
In short: I'm fucked. DLA is the benefit to cover some of the extra costs of disability. It doesn't cover many of those costs anyway and it looks like in 2013 I'm set to lose that little bit of money that allows me some semblance of independence and life.
Miller claims the system needs reforming because it's not helping the right people. I'm loathe to define myself as "needy" or "vulnerable" but thanks to these reforms I will become both. And please remember this post the next time you hear someone from the government claim that welfare reform is about "weeding out the scroungers" while "protecting the most vulnerable."
Edited to add: Over at The Broken of Britain there's a post detailing how to make your objections to the new PIP assessment criteria known. You can also write to your MP making your objections known.
1 December 2008 I tore a tendon out of a metatarsal which pulled the tip of the bone off with it. This injury was the result of simply walking normally.
2 In the early hours of 01/01/2000 I slept in an awkward position. I got woken up by blinding pain at about 4am. The awkward sleeping position had crushed not just one but several vertebrae.
3 As a child I caught my forearm on the edge of the table while eating dinner. This light tap caused my forearm to snap (I only have one forearm bone now where the radius and ulna have been broken so many times they’ve fused together).
The reason that more addicts will be getting High Rate Care (HRC) than blind people is because to get the higher rate care you have to need assistance 24 hours a day. Alcoholics will often need support during the night in case they end up so drunk they pass out and vomit. If someone passes out on their back and vomits they will aspirate their vomit and die so someone needs to be present to roll them into the recovery position if needed. Whereas blind people - unless they have additional medical complications - will typically sleep through the night. If they do have additional medical complications then they'll be the reason why they get HRC rather than the blindness. So that's why we have a system where more addicts get HRC than blind people.
The claim that Miller was trying to make in a roundabout way without actually saying so was that the welfare reforms are only going be targeting people with socially unacceptable impairments, by which I mean conditions that tabloid readers don't like, like alcoholism. She was trying claim, indirectly, that people with socially acceptable conditions will fare OK under welfare reform, that they'll protect the "most vulnerable."
I have osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). I've broken about 50 bones. OI is presumably one of the conditions Miller thinks the public finds socially acceptable so I would be one of the people that Miller was alluding to when she said that the most vulnerable would be protected. I get Disability Living Allowance. I get the high rate mobility (HRM) component and middle rate care (MRC) component.
I get HRM because I'm virtually unable to walk. I can walk a very short distance but only very slowly and with extreme pain and difficulty. My aforementioned osteogenesis means that a good many of my joints have been shattered so have extremely limited movement. The rest of my joints are held in place by tendons and ligaments of such poor quality that my 4kg cat can dislocate my knee by sitting on it. Because my tendons and ligaments don't do a good job of holding me up I fall over very easily, which is really not very safe in someone with brittle bones. Between the pain, the difficulty, the slowness and the danger involved in walking I'd be pretty much housebound without a wheelchair. I couldn't even walk as far as the bus stop at the top of my street (and it's a short street) before my knees had swollen up so much that I couldn't bend them for the rest of the day. My consultant orthopod has told me to walk less than the little bit I already do around the house because I'm causing permanent damage to my joints. I'm wearing them out and I'm only 32.
I then get MRC because I need constant supervision due to injuring easily. Activities during which I’ve broken bones include walking1, sleeping2 and eating3. So the government can't scrimp on my supervision by telling me to cut out risky activities cos, you know, eating and sleeping are essential for survival.
You'd think I'd be one of the people the government would consider "vulnerable," right?
Wrong.
Flicking through the draft criteria for DLA's replacement, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), it looks like in future I won't be getting a penny.
The mobility component will no longer be assessed on your ability to "walk", it will be assessed on your ability to "mobilise". The difference being that they'll consider your ability to get around using a wheelchair. And if you can get around using a wheelchair your benefit will be denied.
If you could use a wheelchair if only you owned one you'll be assessed using an "imaginary wheelchair". And if you can use said imaginary wheelchair you will be denied the benefit that would allow you to buy an actual wheelchair made of proper materials and not just Miller's fanciful thoughts.
Then there's the "Daily Living" component which will be assessed on the following criteria:
- Planning and buying food and drink;
- Preparing and cooking food;
- Taking nutrition;
- Managing medication and monitoring health conditions;
- Managing prescribed therapies other than medication;
- Washing, bathing and grooming;
- Managing toilet needs or incontinence;
- Dressing and undressing; and
- Communicating with others.
Notice how "needs supervision for safety reasons" has gone? Presumably so those addicts will lose the entitlement to supervision so they drown in their own vomit. But it'll also not only affect people like me who injure easily for physical reasons, it'll no doubt affect a huge number of people who currently get DLA due to mental health problems or conditions like epilepsy.
In short: I'm fucked. DLA is the benefit to cover some of the extra costs of disability. It doesn't cover many of those costs anyway and it looks like in 2013 I'm set to lose that little bit of money that allows me some semblance of independence and life.
Miller claims the system needs reforming because it's not helping the right people. I'm loathe to define myself as "needy" or "vulnerable" but thanks to these reforms I will become both. And please remember this post the next time you hear someone from the government claim that welfare reform is about "weeding out the scroungers" while "protecting the most vulnerable."
Edited to add: Over at The Broken of Britain there's a post detailing how to make your objections to the new PIP assessment criteria known. You can also write to your MP making your objections known.
1 December 2008 I tore a tendon out of a metatarsal which pulled the tip of the bone off with it. This injury was the result of simply walking normally.
2 In the early hours of 01/01/2000 I slept in an awkward position. I got woken up by blinding pain at about 4am. The awkward sleeping position had crushed not just one but several vertebrae.
3 As a child I caught my forearm on the edge of the table while eating dinner. This light tap caused my forearm to snap (I only have one forearm bone now where the radius and ulna have been broken so many times they’ve fused together).
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Quick Reminder
The deadline for responses to the DLA consultation is tomorrow.
Make sure you've responded. Remember responses don't have to be submitted by organisations or charities or campaigns; anyone can respond.
So make sure you do!
Make sure you've responded. Remember responses don't have to be submitted by organisations or charities or campaigns; anyone can respond.
So make sure you do!
Thursday, 10 February 2011
DLA Consultation Extended
The consultation on the planned reforms to DLA was extended this afternoon. It will now end on 18th February, four days later than planned. This was done very quietly - I've googled it and not found any announcements but the date on the website now reads as "extended to 18th February".
No reason for this extension has been given, however there is a now a note on the website stating that the online submissions are broken and giving an e-mail address to use instead. It is likely this is the reason why.
I'd like to encourage everyone to make the most of these extra few days to contact MPs, share what DLA means to them and to sign the petition against DLA reform. Even just sharing the links to the petition and/or to One Month Before Heartbreak on your blog, twitter or facebook (or similar) would be a great help.
It's not just the lives of disabled people and their carers which will be altered by DLA reform. Lives change in an instant, and people become disabled. Tomorrow you could wake up find you or a loved one need DLA. This affects everyone - even those who think it's nothing to do with them.
No reason for this extension has been given, however there is a now a note on the website stating that the online submissions are broken and giving an e-mail address to use instead. It is likely this is the reason why.
I'd like to encourage everyone to make the most of these extra few days to contact MPs, share what DLA means to them and to sign the petition against DLA reform. Even just sharing the links to the petition and/or to One Month Before Heartbreak on your blog, twitter or facebook (or similar) would be a great help.
It's not just the lives of disabled people and their carers which will be altered by DLA reform. Lives change in an instant, and people become disabled. Tomorrow you could wake up find you or a loved one need DLA. This affects everyone - even those who think it's nothing to do with them.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Live Q&A With The Minister in charge of DLA
Just a quick note to let Where's The Benefit? readers know that Maria Miller, the minister in charge of disability living allowance, is going to be answering Guardian readers' questions about the proposed scrapping of DLA, and this could be an ideal opportunity for those of us with concerns to put forward our comments, worries and suggestions.
The consultation on reform of the DLA closes on 14 February. But before this happens, Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, is giving you the chance to ask her questions and put forward your thoughts on the proposals directly to her live online, on Wednesday at 1.45pm.To ask Maria Miller a question, go to this page on the Guardian website, and post your question as a comment at the bottom of the article.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
ADHD and DLA fraud
There's an article on the BBC News website is entitled Unscrupulous parents seek ADHD diagnosis for benefits
The evidence for this assertion is that two anonymous headteachers claim this to be the case.
Psychiatric diagnoses with subjective criteria are always tricky and identifying abnormality in children's behaviour is particularly fraught, so there are bound to be misdiagnoses. But for children with these impairments, attempting to navigate the world and an inflexible education system, a diagnosis of ADHD can be a tremendous gateway, not to extra cash for their parents, but to proper treatment and the help they need to succeed. DLA can be used to buy time, peace, practical adjustments and special arrangments so that these children and their families can have as full and normal life as possible. Which in turn promotes normal development.
Their anonymous source continues
Only of course, there are only 328,000 people on DLA under the age of 16, including all those with mobility and special care needs, whereas there are many more children taking Ritalin (I can't find a figure that agrees, but somewhere past half a million). Ritalin prescription and DLA do not go hand in hand.
Then finally,
This article rattled me because it is such weak reporting and by the BBC, from whom I'd expect better. Disability fraud and the urgent need for reform has become a bandwagon, where an argument is built up around the word of anonymous sources who have no expertise beyond their anecdotal experience. Because there must be fraud. There must be massive fraud or else the government wouldn't be able to justify the cuts and increased stress and scrutiny in store for everyone on disability benefits.
The website article relates to a radio piece on this matter at 9pm tonight (Sunday, 6 February) on BBC Radio 5 Live. No, me neither.
The evidence for this assertion is that two anonymous headteachers claim this to be the case.
"Susan" has asked to remain anonymous, because she knows what she says is controversial and does not want to stigmatise the parents of every child with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).Not sure how anonymous sources make any difference to the stigmatising effect of the article. ADHD is already a massively stigmatised condition. Many people, including teachers, are sceptical as to whether the condition isn't simply a way for bad parents to excuse the bad behaviour of their children. I have heard it theorised that ADHD is a problem caused by middle class parents who aren't prepared to smack their children and demand a label when their children struggle at school, or that ADHD is a problem caused by working class parents who feed their children junk food and abandon them to the television. Bringing benefit fraud into this can only add to the stigma.
Psychiatric diagnoses with subjective criteria are always tricky and identifying abnormality in children's behaviour is particularly fraught, so there are bound to be misdiagnoses. But for children with these impairments, attempting to navigate the world and an inflexible education system, a diagnosis of ADHD can be a tremendous gateway, not to extra cash for their parents, but to proper treatment and the help they need to succeed. DLA can be used to buy time, peace, practical adjustments and special arrangments so that these children and their families can have as full and normal life as possible. Which in turn promotes normal development.
Their anonymous source continues
"Every child I have on medication, we are asked to fill part of the forms that they [parents] submit as benefit claimants, to verify they have ADHD, so it goes hand-in-hand."As the article later points out, both NICE and the Royal College of Psychiatrist believe that Ritalin should only be prescribed to chlidren with severe behavioural problems. Therefore, it follows, those families whose children are actually prescribed Ritalin are likely to be in greastest need for help.
Only of course, there are only 328,000 people on DLA under the age of 16, including all those with mobility and special care needs, whereas there are many more children taking Ritalin (I can't find a figure that agrees, but somewhere past half a million). Ritalin prescription and DLA do not go hand in hand.
Then finally,
Abuse of the Disability Living Allowance by parents is one reason the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is discussing reform.No, it's not. It has been said before, but it has to be said again and again, DLA fraud is reckoned to stand at 0.5%. There are only 328,000 people under 16 claiming DLA, including all those children with mobility and special care needs. Presuming that fraud is as common amongst parents and guardians claiming for their children than amongst adults claiming for themselves – which seems extremely unlikely given the much stricter criteria for under 16s – then that's about 1600 cases in the country. The DWP are not reforming anything for the sake of 1600 fraudulent parents.
This article rattled me because it is such weak reporting and by the BBC, from whom I'd expect better. Disability fraud and the urgent need for reform has become a bandwagon, where an argument is built up around the word of anonymous sources who have no expertise beyond their anecdotal experience. Because there must be fraud. There must be massive fraud or else the government wouldn't be able to justify the cuts and increased stress and scrutiny in store for everyone on disability benefits.
The website article relates to a radio piece on this matter at 9pm tonight (Sunday, 6 February) on BBC Radio 5 Live. No, me neither.
Friday, 7 January 2011
A letter from my MP
Cross posted at Rage against the Coalition
Just before Christmas I wrote to my MP expressing my concerns at the DLA reforms. I didn't expect much because he is a staunch Tory but I had to at least try.
Here is his reply
"Dear Ms Thomas,
Thank you for contacting me about reforms to Disability Living Allowance.
I believe that the Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality and I also believe it has a duty to ensure that it has the right governance in place to deliver this support efficiently and sensibly.
The Government is already undertaking a large-scale reform of the welfare system, for example the Universal Credit and it's flagship Work Programme. These welfare reforms are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable situations, including disabled people. The Government has made it clear that it is steadfast in its support for the principles of DLA, as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people.
However, DLA is currently a poorly targeted and unsustainable benefit. Almost three million people receive this benefit at a forecast cost of £12 billion per year. We now have a disability benefit which is confusing for individuals to understand, based on unclear criteria and often results in inconsistent rewards, and since 1992, both the case load and the cost of DLA have grown to a level that is unsustainable. Change to DLA are long overdue and must address questions of fairness and value, while supporting disabled people to lead independent lives. We must ensure DLA better reflects the needs of disabled people today, rather than in the 1990's, and that it enables support to be targeted to those with the greatest need.
The Government wants to bring disability benefits into the 21st century by replacing DLA with a new Personal Independence Payment. This is an opportunity to improve the support for disabled people and enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. The Personal Independence Payment will maintain the key principles of DLA, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more consistent and sustainable manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who face the greatest challenges to leading independent lives and this reform is required to enable that, along with a clearer assessment process.
The Government has launched a formal public consultation on DLA and wants the views of disabled people to be fully reflected in any change it makes to DLA and has asked disabled people and their organisations to join the debate on reforming DLA. You may wish to make your views known and you can contribute to the Consultation by visiting website: http://dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml
I want to assure you that those who are genuinely sick, disabled or retired have nothing to fear. This Government does not regard caring for the needy as a burden, but as a proud duty.
I hope that this reassures you and thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Robert Syms
Member of Parliament for Poole."
Cutting through the waffle, this says to me 'We are paying too many people. We don't want to pay that many people. So we are re-drawing the boundaries to ensure that those we don't want to pay don't get through.
We want to pretend we are caring but what we are really concerned about is how much money we will have to spend and our reputation'
I have no faith that my own MP will stand up for people like me.
Just before Christmas I wrote to my MP expressing my concerns at the DLA reforms. I didn't expect much because he is a staunch Tory but I had to at least try.
Here is his reply
"Dear Ms Thomas,
Thank you for contacting me about reforms to Disability Living Allowance.
I believe that the Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality and I also believe it has a duty to ensure that it has the right governance in place to deliver this support efficiently and sensibly.
The Government is already undertaking a large-scale reform of the welfare system, for example the Universal Credit and it's flagship Work Programme. These welfare reforms are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable situations, including disabled people. The Government has made it clear that it is steadfast in its support for the principles of DLA, as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people.
However, DLA is currently a poorly targeted and unsustainable benefit. Almost three million people receive this benefit at a forecast cost of £12 billion per year. We now have a disability benefit which is confusing for individuals to understand, based on unclear criteria and often results in inconsistent rewards, and since 1992, both the case load and the cost of DLA have grown to a level that is unsustainable. Change to DLA are long overdue and must address questions of fairness and value, while supporting disabled people to lead independent lives. We must ensure DLA better reflects the needs of disabled people today, rather than in the 1990's, and that it enables support to be targeted to those with the greatest need.
The Government wants to bring disability benefits into the 21st century by replacing DLA with a new Personal Independence Payment. This is an opportunity to improve the support for disabled people and enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. The Personal Independence Payment will maintain the key principles of DLA, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more consistent and sustainable manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who face the greatest challenges to leading independent lives and this reform is required to enable that, along with a clearer assessment process.
The Government has launched a formal public consultation on DLA and wants the views of disabled people to be fully reflected in any change it makes to DLA and has asked disabled people and their organisations to join the debate on reforming DLA. You may wish to make your views known and you can contribute to the Consultation by visiting website: http://dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml
I want to assure you that those who are genuinely sick, disabled or retired have nothing to fear. This Government does not regard caring for the needy as a burden, but as a proud duty.
I hope that this reassures you and thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Robert Syms
Member of Parliament for Poole."
Cutting through the waffle, this says to me 'We are paying too many people. We don't want to pay that many people. So we are re-drawing the boundaries to ensure that those we don't want to pay don't get through.
We want to pretend we are caring but what we are really concerned about is how much money we will have to spend and our reputation'
I have no faith that my own MP will stand up for people like me.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Demolition Of The Case For DLA Reform
This is a guest post by Rhydian Fôn James (mathematician and economist) and originally appeared on Benefit Scrounging Scum
Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled People, should immediately recall the Public Consultation on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform, and cease work on reform of this benefit. This should be done because the reasons given for DLA reform are not robust, with little evidence to support the case for reform and, importantly, no independent academic research. The use of the word ‘little’ refers to the two pieces of internal DWP papers used as evidence to build the entire case for reform – a footnote for one reference appears twice on consecutive pages. Thus the case for reform falls apart upon even cursory examination. As such, the consultation questions are deeply skewed and any answers will be likely to support wholesale reform. This is both unfair and unwise, and will cause hardship for many disabled people.
The wildest claim to support reform is that ‘evidence suggests that DLA can also act as a barrier to work’. This passage is footnoted, referring to “Disability Living Allowance and work: Exploratory research and evidence review, 2010, DWP Research Report No. 648” (RR No.648). This report also finds that “he main factor affecting the employment rates of disabled people is their disability or health condition” and that “a larger than average proportion of DLA recipients also appears to be affected by the specific types of impairment that carry the greatest employment disadvantage for disabled people” – yet these findings are not reported in the consultation paper, thus skewing discussion.
In fact, though the report claims that there exists a “perception of disability permanently precluding work is prevalent among individuals with disabilities not already in employment”, there is no evidence cited in the report that suggests DLA could be a barrier to work. The section and all references to it in the consultation paper could be interpreted as an attempt to misdirect, and should be removed forthwith. Further, it should be noted that the consultation commits the statistical crime of confusing correlation with causation. Whilst RR No. 648 does provide evidence that low employment is correlated with claiming of DLA, this in no way implies that one causes the other.
It could be suggested that the lack of evidence pointing to a need for reform has meant that misdirection was used in an attempt to convince the public that DLA reform is necessary. In particular, the graphs presented as Figure 1 and 2, on page 8 of the consultation paper, used to show the DLA caseload increasing at an alarming rate, are flawed in many ways, not least in the fact that no baseline is established for when take-up of DLA by people with disabilities plateaued after its introduction in 1992/93. There are further issues regarding the number of Pensioners as the report ignores demographic trends to show that there is a dramatic increase in claims by people over State Pension age. This is particularly questionable since a Pensioners’ eligibility for DLA would usually depend on their receipt of DLA prior to this – otherwise, they would be eligible for Attendance Allowance. This is not made explicit in the consultation paper.
Figure 2 is also misleading as it could be read carelessly as showing that 8% of the population claim DLA. I am loath to interpret this as intentional misdirection but it is, at the very least, a sloppy drawing of graphs. Another example of sloppiness is the first sentence of paragraph 15 of the first chapter, on page 7 of the consultation paper, reading “In just eight years, the numbers receiving DLA has increased by 30 per cent.” This sentence is utterly meaningless and a misuse of statistics although, once again, I do not wish to interpret this negatively. Yet another example of the spurious use of statistics is Table 1 on Page 9 which presents the “Distribution of current caseload by rate combination”. This table appears between two paragraphs – 16 and 17 – arguing that the current system is too complex and the benefit is not understood. This is an odd, and potentially misleading, place for this data to be displayed.
Beyond misuse of statistics, sloppy presentation of data and lack of evidence, there are further points to be queried. Whilst RR No. 648 does give evidence that DLA is complex and not understood by all claimants, as suggested in paragraph 19 on page 10, this is surely grounds for improving the current system rather than expensively replacing it with an entirely new one. Likewise the assertion, in paragraph 18 of page 9, that there is no system to check that rewards remain correct. The statement that “Two-thirds of people currently on DLA have an indefinite award, which means that their award may continue for life without ever being checked to see if it still reflects their needs” is a rhetorical tautology. Indefinite awards are given to claimants with conditions that will not improve. Whilst it is not unreasonable that medical advances in the treatment of a certain condition should prompt re-evaluation of those cases, this could be achieved by augmenting DLA rather than replacing it.
The core argument of the consultation paper is that DLA is a benefit not fit for purpose. Paragraph 9 on page 6 of the consultation paper states that: “DLA is a benefit that provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition.” The arguments presented in paragraphs 14 and 15 of page 8, claiming that the benefit is not fit for purpose, do not touch upon the original purpose of DLA or offer any argument as to why it is failing to meet its original purpose. The information presented is that the DLA caseload and expenditure is a “lot more than was originally expected” and the aforementioned misuse of statistics on the increase in DLA claims. No arguments are presented as to why this means that DLA is not fit for purpose. The only way an argument can be construed is to look at the issue with a preconceived idea that there is an acceptable level of DLA claims prior to evaluating the health and impairment of claimants.
Finally, paragraph 2 betrays this preconception by stating: “We believe that now is the right time to reform DLA”, yet offers no qualification or reasoning for this belief. Paragraph 3 continues by saying that: “We must ensure that our resources are focused on those with the greatest need”, with no qualification or definition of the term “greatest need”. This could be pointed to as a suggestion that those with “lesser needs” will have to struggle unsupported with their impairment, and that the definition of needs is at the whim of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The arguments above demolish the case for reform presented in the consultation paper, dealing with each point made in the consultation paper. It raises serious questions about the competence of the Minister responsible and the Secretary of State that a consultation paper for reform has been based on such a shocking lack of evidence, preconceptions about benefit claims and abuse of accepted statistical methodology.
Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled People, should immediately recall the Public Consultation on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform, and cease work on reform of this benefit. This should be done because the reasons given for DLA reform are not robust, with little evidence to support the case for reform and, importantly, no independent academic research. The use of the word ‘little’ refers to the two pieces of internal DWP papers used as evidence to build the entire case for reform – a footnote for one reference appears twice on consecutive pages. Thus the case for reform falls apart upon even cursory examination. As such, the consultation questions are deeply skewed and any answers will be likely to support wholesale reform. This is both unfair and unwise, and will cause hardship for many disabled people.
The wildest claim to support reform is that ‘evidence suggests that DLA can also act as a barrier to work’. This passage is footnoted, referring to “Disability Living Allowance and work: Exploratory research and evidence review, 2010, DWP Research Report No. 648” (RR No.648). This report also finds that “he main factor affecting the employment rates of disabled people is their disability or health condition” and that “a larger than average proportion of DLA recipients also appears to be affected by the specific types of impairment that carry the greatest employment disadvantage for disabled people” – yet these findings are not reported in the consultation paper, thus skewing discussion.
In fact, though the report claims that there exists a “perception of disability permanently precluding work is prevalent among individuals with disabilities not already in employment”, there is no evidence cited in the report that suggests DLA could be a barrier to work. The section and all references to it in the consultation paper could be interpreted as an attempt to misdirect, and should be removed forthwith. Further, it should be noted that the consultation commits the statistical crime of confusing correlation with causation. Whilst RR No. 648 does provide evidence that low employment is correlated with claiming of DLA, this in no way implies that one causes the other.
It could be suggested that the lack of evidence pointing to a need for reform has meant that misdirection was used in an attempt to convince the public that DLA reform is necessary. In particular, the graphs presented as Figure 1 and 2, on page 8 of the consultation paper, used to show the DLA caseload increasing at an alarming rate, are flawed in many ways, not least in the fact that no baseline is established for when take-up of DLA by people with disabilities plateaued after its introduction in 1992/93. There are further issues regarding the number of Pensioners as the report ignores demographic trends to show that there is a dramatic increase in claims by people over State Pension age. This is particularly questionable since a Pensioners’ eligibility for DLA would usually depend on their receipt of DLA prior to this – otherwise, they would be eligible for Attendance Allowance. This is not made explicit in the consultation paper.
Figure 2 is also misleading as it could be read carelessly as showing that 8% of the population claim DLA. I am loath to interpret this as intentional misdirection but it is, at the very least, a sloppy drawing of graphs. Another example of sloppiness is the first sentence of paragraph 15 of the first chapter, on page 7 of the consultation paper, reading “In just eight years, the numbers receiving DLA has increased by 30 per cent.” This sentence is utterly meaningless and a misuse of statistics although, once again, I do not wish to interpret this negatively. Yet another example of the spurious use of statistics is Table 1 on Page 9 which presents the “Distribution of current caseload by rate combination”. This table appears between two paragraphs – 16 and 17 – arguing that the current system is too complex and the benefit is not understood. This is an odd, and potentially misleading, place for this data to be displayed.
Beyond misuse of statistics, sloppy presentation of data and lack of evidence, there are further points to be queried. Whilst RR No. 648 does give evidence that DLA is complex and not understood by all claimants, as suggested in paragraph 19 on page 10, this is surely grounds for improving the current system rather than expensively replacing it with an entirely new one. Likewise the assertion, in paragraph 18 of page 9, that there is no system to check that rewards remain correct. The statement that “Two-thirds of people currently on DLA have an indefinite award, which means that their award may continue for life without ever being checked to see if it still reflects their needs” is a rhetorical tautology. Indefinite awards are given to claimants with conditions that will not improve. Whilst it is not unreasonable that medical advances in the treatment of a certain condition should prompt re-evaluation of those cases, this could be achieved by augmenting DLA rather than replacing it.
The core argument of the consultation paper is that DLA is a benefit not fit for purpose. Paragraph 9 on page 6 of the consultation paper states that: “DLA is a benefit that provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition.” The arguments presented in paragraphs 14 and 15 of page 8, claiming that the benefit is not fit for purpose, do not touch upon the original purpose of DLA or offer any argument as to why it is failing to meet its original purpose. The information presented is that the DLA caseload and expenditure is a “lot more than was originally expected” and the aforementioned misuse of statistics on the increase in DLA claims. No arguments are presented as to why this means that DLA is not fit for purpose. The only way an argument can be construed is to look at the issue with a preconceived idea that there is an acceptable level of DLA claims prior to evaluating the health and impairment of claimants.
Finally, paragraph 2 betrays this preconception by stating: “We believe that now is the right time to reform DLA”, yet offers no qualification or reasoning for this belief. Paragraph 3 continues by saying that: “We must ensure that our resources are focused on those with the greatest need”, with no qualification or definition of the term “greatest need”. This could be pointed to as a suggestion that those with “lesser needs” will have to struggle unsupported with their impairment, and that the definition of needs is at the whim of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The arguments above demolish the case for reform presented in the consultation paper, dealing with each point made in the consultation paper. It raises serious questions about the competence of the Minister responsible and the Secretary of State that a consultation paper for reform has been based on such a shocking lack of evidence, preconceptions about benefit claims and abuse of accepted statistical methodology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)