Tag Archives: disability

Basic standard of living vs. Long-term Incapacity Benefit

Do you earn enough for a basic standard of living?

The Minimum Income Standard for the UK shows how much money people need, so that they can buy things that members of the public think that everyone in the UK should be able to afford. Take the test at the link: http://www.minimumincome.org.uk/

Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 08.28.42Now compare ‘minimum income standard’ with what someone on long term sickness/disability benefit actually gets. The hypothetical person has no realistic prospect of returning to work in the near future, yet their compensated income isn’t even subsistence income.

But whilst the public may think that someone on a wage should be able to afford these things, you may not. It could be said that they can do without alcohol and they don’t need to spend money on social activities because there are things that can be done for free. Someone can quite rightly claim that clothing isn’t something that has to be purchased every month either, especially if you’re careful with your clothes.

It is often mis represented that the case for higher benefits (in this context) is wanting parity with an earning standard of living. This was an exercise in demonstrating the current wide disparity by showing that £115 per week is the gap at two extremes (within the context). However the figures proposed at minimum working/earning standard of living are not wild or fanciful. The reality for all disabled and long term sickness benefit recipients is that the benefits are barely meeting their needs, let alone even partially their desires.

I think that the debate should be where between the two extremes should the income be set. So what is appropriate substance levels, bearing in mind that the disabled person has no fair reason to be excluded from normal participation in society? Also bearing in mind the difference between an Able bodied job seeker, vs what we are talking about: incapacitated through sickness/health or disability.

For the job seeker, a temporary exclusion from normal participation is acceptable due to the temporary nature of unemployment relative to employment, and the motivation that exists there in; however the long term sick/disabled faces exclusion from participation in cultural activities, or from affording enough variety in food and social activities, and the motivation factor is redundant in this respect.

The disabled or long term incapacitated person will also have generally higher costs of living associated with their incapacity. There also comes a point where all clothes eventually do fall apart, no matter how careful one is, or become tatty/ragged, yet the less than substance existence provides not much leeway for replacement of items clothing or household that break or wear down.

For international comparison, the income for disabled/sickness benefit in UK is 1/4 of that in Canada, and 1/2 of the European average.

And final, all social security will be uprated at 1% for next three years. As the benefits barely cover cost of all essentials, this means a very real drop in income as inflation increases.  Compared to someone on median wage of £21k, someone on the income provided here has currently £96pw. In fixed cash terms, after three years that will be equivalent to £66pw.

The point being: there is very little “fat” left to cut. Literally in some cases!

Urgent petition to halt damaging changes to the work capability assessment #esaSOS

Re-blogged from: http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/esasos.html

#esaSOS: YOUR HELP NEEDED URGENTLY!

On 28 January 2013 the UK government is due to make a set of changes to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The WCA is the flawed ‘fitness to work’ test which assesses whether sick and disabled people can get Employment and Support Allowance (ESA): a benefit designed to help and support very unwell or profoundly disabled people into work.

Although these changes have been advertised as small ‘amendments’, they will in fact have a huge impact on the way people’s illnesses and disabilities are assessed. Many vulnerable people’s needs will suddenly be able to be overlooked or ignored, meaning they could end up losing the support they desperately need to manage their conditions.

Hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people across Britain need your help to fight these changes!

PROBLEM 1: FALSE ASSUMPTIONS

In the fitness to work test, your needs are assessed by a ‘healthcare professional’ employed by the French private company ATOS. This assessor doesn’t just need to look at your current difficulties. For example, they can also imagine how using an aid (e.g. a wheelchair) might improve your ability to work and make a judgement based on that –without even asking your opinion!
However, soon this “imaginary test” will be able to be used for many more aids (including guide dogs and false limbs!). This means that soon thousands more people could be judged as fit to work, without being consulted, on the basis of an “imaginary” aid they don’t own or may not be able to use!

It gets worse. Even if returning to work may clearly put you at risk, these changes will mean you can still lose your disability benefit – as long as the assessor believes that trying a new therapy or treatment might reduce that risk. There’s no need for evidence that the treatment will help: you will lose support either way, making it much harder to manage if the treatment doesn’t work as hoped – let alone if it ends up making things worse.

Imagine Bert, who suffers from severe schizophrenia, but is found fit to work and made to take behavioural therapy in the hope of improving his condition. He will lose his disability benefit, without the assessor having to look at several vital questions: how hard it would be for Bert to contact a psychiatrist? How long would an NHS appointment take to organize? Are there private options in his area – and could he afford them if so? What if the therapy doesn’t work, or takes a long time to adjust to?

“How individuals are assessed to receive ESA could give rise to large numbers of legal claims being made against them. These changes immediately puts the government at risk of breaching article 9 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights, which preserves an individual’s right to ‘thought, conscience and religion’. The new rules provide for an individual to be refused ESA if they do not take any medication or accept an aid which Doctors believe could aid their condition. Essentially, they can impose a financial penalty on individuals who refuse treatment on religious. Given the very recent decision involving the Christian, Nadia Eweida and the court upholding her right to wear a cross – the government is on very rocky ground with these changes.” Chris Fry, Solicitor and Managing Partner at Unity Law www.unity-law.co.uk

If the government’s rule changes go through, people like Bert who are desperate to work will find it nearly impossible to get an accurate assessment, affecting the quality of their support and actively preventing their efforts to get back into work.

PROBLEM 2: SEPARATING PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

The government is also trying to change the way people’s conditions are assessed by dividing health problems into two separate boxes: ‘physical’ and ‘mental’. When looking at what tasks people can do, only the ‘physical half’ of the test will apply to those with physical disabilities. The same goes for the effects of treatment: for e.g., if you’re taking mental health medication, only mental health side-effects will be looked at.
This completely fails to understand the way that many disabilities and illnesses can lead toboth physical and mental effects. This is also the case for many common treatments: such as those for schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

Think of Emily, who suffers severe, chronic pain because of nerve damage to her leg. Emily is among the 49% of chronic pain sufferers who also suffer depression as a result of continuous pain. An assessor may see Emily as able to do some work as long as she takes strong painkillers for the rest of her life, meaning she could pass the ‘fitness’ test. Yet the painkillers may not deal with the depression caused by her condition. Painkillers have also often been shown to affect people’s wakefulness and decision-making. So taking the medication may affect Emily’s ability to do a job in a completely new way – yet because these new problems are cognitive, they would not need to be looked at by the assessor when making their decision!

Pretending the effects of illnesses and disabilities can be separated in this way goes against all medical practice. Going even further, and using this method to ignore sick and disabled people’s needs, is at best hopeless policy, and at worst deliberate cruelty. We cannot let the government treat some of the most vulnerable people in British society in this way.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

The main way you can help is by spreading the message about these changes to ESA. The government have tried to sneak them under the radar – the last thing they will want is people talking about them!

Here are some great ways you can raise awareness:

  1. Email your MP (you can search by name or constituency at http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/);
  2. Share this blog post on twitter (using the hashtag #esaSOS), Facebook and other social media CLICK ON THE BUTTONS BELOW THIS POST TO SHARE ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
  3. Email your friends and family a link to this post – or simply talk to them about it!

Again, the main way we can get the government to reconsider is by getting people to talk about the injustice of these changes. So please spread the word as far and wide as you can!

Thank you so much for reading this far. Now let’s make sure these unwanted, damaging benefit changes never see the light of day!

If you want to do more, please sign #WOWpetition and call on the government to think again. Sign here http://wowpetition.com – and ask all of your friends to sign too!
—————————————————————————————
THE FULL #SPARTACUS PRESS BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ESA CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/ESAbriefing

Shocking denial of liability for the well-being of sickness benefit claimants

The Countess of Mar tabled a written question that asked the Government: “What person or organisation is legally liable for the wellbeing of benefits claimants who are found to be fit for work under the work capability assessment and who are then made to work?” In a written reply, the Minister for Welfare Reform at the Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) on 19 December 2012, replied:

The purpose of the work capability assessment (WCA) is to assist DWP decision-makers in assessing eligibility for benefit, or levels of benefit. The WCA is not a medical diagnosis and the decision affects benefit only; it does not oblige anyone to work.

Whilst the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is legally responsible for all benefit decisions made by officials of the department on his behalf, there is no legal responsibility held by the Secretary of State for the well-being of benefit claimants.

Therefore, neither DWP nor WCA healthcare professionals are liable for any adverse consequence suffered by a claimant following a decision that the claimant is fit for work or for work-related activity.

This is a shocking statement on many levels.

Firstly, the dereliction of duty. The WCA is sign posted as a ‘Medical Assessment’ at many points in the ‘claimants journey’ and is conducted by a ‘health care professional’, employed by ATOS. One of the keys in understanding what is going on here is the change in emphasis. The coalition changed ‘sick notes’ in to ‘well notes’, and the assessment for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) became about assessing ‘what sort of work a person CAN do’. With tests such as picking up a pen off the floor, or moving a small empty cardboard box, and often not taking in to account any of the medical evidence provided, or even failing to even listen to the person sitting there. One commentator pointed out, “Now I may be wrong here and if I am please do correct me but when filling out the ESA form do the DWP not reserve the right to inform your GP of their decision? If the decision only affects benefit why do they do this?”

Recently, Louise Davidson had her benefits reduced after an assessment by ATOS, despite recovering from a double lounge transplant and having rejection complications. This isn’t a one off by any means, websites, activist, support groups and blogs are hearing daily from people who, despite very clear and serious medical conditions, are being declared either ‘fit for work’, or placed in to the ‘work related activity group’ (WRAG). The latter is a lower rate of ESA time limited to one year, because the assessment comes to the conclusion that the person will be able to work “at some point in the future”. An unspecified point in the future. It wasn’t time limited until the coalition came in to power.

And to add insult to injury, if people in this group are not “making appropriate preparation to get back in to work” – i.e. not making the effort to get well (!) –  then they can be sanctioned, and put in to the same work programme as people on Job Seekers Alowance (JSA). Knowing this, it is therefore deceitful for Lord Freud to state, “it does not oblige anyone to work.” And if someone is found fit for work, what else is someone supposed to do? They can go on to JSA. But, the Job Centre may not accept them as they have medical conditions and according to their rules there, the person may not be fit to work, therefore not able to claim JSA. This again is not unusual, and time again there is plenty of evidence of people with serious medical conditions being thrown out of the benefits system altogether.

But surely the cruelest part of this official statement, bearing in mind all the information above, is in the last paragraph. They deny ANY liability for “any adverse consequence suffered by a claimant following a decision that the claimant is fit for work or for work-related activity.” These are vulnerable people and Mike Sivier’s blog entry on the despicable response from the Prime Minister this week, lists just some of the 100s of people that we know by name who attribute their suicide or death to the consequences of being left with no hope by the decisions of the state.

Finally, I want to mention Karen Sherlock. She was one of the names Owen Jones tried to mention on Question Time when the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, turn red with rage and angrily shouted over Owen declaring, “We’re changing their lives. We’re getting them off benefit, and that’s what we’re doing.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voices/2012/06/disability-karen-sherlock-sue-marsh

“Despite her own terror, she tried to tell her country, her peers, her friends – even journalists – what was happening to her and thousands like her, but shocked tuts didn’t save her. Open mouths and disgust didn’t save Karen; they didn’t save my friend. Perhaps no one could have, but those who hold and abuse power could have eased her fear or reassured her that they would act.

“Karen died on June 8 from a suspected heart attack”

A tragedy is already happening under our noses

Some numbers. Very sad numbers. You can check all of these using search engines, and have multiple corroborating sources. [Edited from a post by S. K. Walker.]

27 – People shot dead in the Connecticut school shooting.

24,000 – number of people who died in the UK last winter because of ‘fuel poverty’. 

73 – deaths per week (including suicides) among disabled people as a result of the government’s programme of Work Capability Assessments (WCAs), which is categorising people as fit for work when they are plainly not.(Many have expressed doubts over the veracity of this figure. They are DWP figures and widely accept as reliable and have been referred to in many House of Commons debates, a good benchmark. However, others wonder how we can compare this to the general death rate. In reply I offer that, the year previously there were 52 deaths per week recorded, so this is a year on year increase. Now these deaths start to sound more serious, in my opinion.)500,000 (est.) – number of disabled people deliberately excluded from the reforms to DLA, to be called the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), as a cost-saving measure. So not receiving the extra mobility support and care allowances to carry on a normal life (many of these need this extra support to carry on working and “contributing to society” by paying tax etc etc.)

But that appears over-cautious. Yesterday, the Tory Minister for Disabled People, Esther McVey, told the House of Commons that, of the 560,000 people who will be assessed for the new benefit by 2015, 330,000 are expected to be excluded from the benefit. That’s an exclusion rate of 59%. 3.2 million people receive DLA, so if the same failure rate applies as they become due for reassessment, that means around 1.9 million disabled people who will lose crucial support. Using the same calculations as I applied to the 500,000 initially flagged to be excluded, it means almost a million people pushed below the poverty line.

(There is also another issue: how do the Government know the numbers before reassessment has even taken place? This sounds like another ‘forecasted mean’ that looks like a target, but “isn’t a target – OK?”…)

Factor that into the death rate from energy and food poverty, and you’re looking at a situation where the 24,000 deaths last winter will look like nothing compared to what we’re going to see, let alone the 30 innocent deaths in Connecticut.