L00b Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 600,000 appeals since the WCA started, costing about £60m a year.So, that's £100 an appeal. Not exactly lining anyone's pockets. <...>about 41% of those refused support go to tribunal and 30% are subsequently granted the benefit.<...> If I am correct in thinking that it says 30% of those refused, win their appeal, that would be 73% of Appeals being successful.As mentioned by Obelix, this 'blind' quoting of stats (in the linked article) with a clear context could be misleading. If 600,000 represents the 41% (number of appeals), that gives a total of 1,463,000 assessed. If the 30% is out of the 600,000, that gives a total of 180,000 incorrently assessed. Out of 1.5m, that's around a 10% error margin. Not that bad, actually. If the 30% is out of the 1,463,00 however, then of course that gives a much more significant total of 438,900 incorrently assessed. So which is which? EDIT - per cgksheff's later link: The figures show that 1,176,600 people applied for ESA between October 2008 and August 2010. Of these, 181,900 went to court in an attempt to appeal the decision made when found 'fit for work', with 69,800 successfully overturning their assessments. Therefore, out the total number of initial applications that have been made only 5.93 per cent have been taken to court and seen a 'fit for work' assessment overturned Is it me, or does this link now suggests that the Grauniad figures are grossly misleading (or that the "journalist" simply does not have a head for numbers!), regardless of which 30% we're talking about here? /EDIT FWIW, I'm not expecting either Panorama or Despatches to shed any light about that - in my exprience these are edited more for shock/controversy than for unbiased factual reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 EDIT - per cgksheff's later link: Is it me, or does this link now suggests that the Grauniad figures are grossly misleading (or that the "journalist" simply does not have a head for numbers!), regardless of which 30% we're talking about here? Given that the journalist cannot distinguish between a tribunal and a court appearance, I wouldn't expect his numbers to be remotely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So, that's £100 an appeal. Not exactly lining anyone's pockets. As mentioned by Obelix, this 'blind' quoting of stats (in the linked article) with a clear context could be misleading. If 600,000 represents the 41% (number of appeals), that gives a total of 1,463,000 assessed. If the 30% is out of the 600,000, that gives a total of 180,000 incorrently assessed. Out of 1.5m, that's around a 10% error margin. Not that bad, actually. If the 30% is out of the 1,463,00 however, then of course that gives a much more significant total of 438,900 incorrently assessed. So which is which? EDIT - per cgksheff's later link: Is it me, or does this link now suggests that the Grauniad figures are grossly misleading (or that the "journalist" simply does not have a head for numbers!), regardless of which 30% we're talking about here? /EDIT FWIW, I'm not expecting either Panorama or Despatches to shed any light about that - in my exprience these are edited more for shock/controversy than for unbiased factual reporting. Stats are always misleading and can mean anything the applyer can want them to mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scozzie Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The test picks out people who are able to do some form of work, I don't see why those who need to take the test are so scared. I actually think that if you're at all concerned about the result of the test, you probably know that you can do some form of work. People are scared because people with legitimate ilnesses/disabilities are having it taken off them. My sister had her benefits taken off her. She'd had a carbon fibre rod inserted to replace a back bone that was crushed by a car, but the rod snapped and it was 11 months before she could get an operation to get it replaced. During this time, she could not hold herself upright, her week was taken up by physio, hydrotherapy, coucilling and legal appointments. As well as having a major opertion on the cards that would take about 6 months to recover from. As well as being doped up on various prescribed medications like morphine. She was considered 'fit for work'. I don't know what they expected her to do, or when, but that was the end of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Programme on Channel 4 now (started 8pm) covering Atos. The rules seem incredibly stringent. And potentially very unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nataliie Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I can't believe some of the guidelines they have from DWP. Its ridiculous. I know the private contracts Atos have, are nothing like this, and seem much more flexible and work on an individual basis rather than strict guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 After wacthing both programs it became apparent that the work capabillity assesment doesn't work. I was surprised to see that both programs came to the same conclusion. If a person had one arm, they still fail the medical. If a cancer patients is not recieving chemotherapy, they fail the medical. A person with one finger would still fail the medical. A man who was sectioned in a mental health hospital was placed in the work related activity group. A blind person who can read braile can be found fit for work. The atos staff are informed to only put around 12% into the support group. Professor MALCOM HARRINGTON has resigned his post. Whether forcefully or not, I guess we'll never know. If people are going to be assessed it shouldn't be to a set of targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 In the film, the trainer highlights to new trainees the way that the new system has been altered so it offers less support to certain categories of claimants. "For employment support allowance, we talk about mobilising, which means being able to transfer from point A to point B either by walking, walking with aids, which is crutches, walking sticks, Zimmer frame or using a manual wheelchair. So if someone has no legs but they have good hands, they can sit and propel a manual wheelchair, they don't score anything. This is one of the toughest changes," she says. "I've recently had somebody with prostate cancer, but of course that's not traditionally treated with chemotherapy so I gave him no points. And I couldn't do anything else…. Same with breast cancer: the hormonal treatments don't count. So he was given no points, I felt very uncomfortable doing it and I didn't like doing it, but I had no way of scoring him." Large numbers of people found ineligible for the benefit are appealing against the decision to find them fit for work; about 41% of those refused support go to tribunal and 30% are subsequently granted the benefit. There have been more than 600,000 appeals since the WCA started, costing about £60m a year. The film also reveals Atos's lack of accountability for these appeals. The trainer explains: "Good thing for us is, even if you made the wrong decision … you never go to the tribunal. So, sort of, you won't be blamed." An Atos Healthcare spokesperson said: "It is simply and absolutely untrue that there are targets for the number of people to be assessed as fit-to-work; neither set by the Department for Work and Pensions nor Atos Healthcare. Every person we see is assessed individually with a focus on the facts of their own case." On Thursday, the high court granted permission to two disabled people to bring a claim for judicial review against the work and pensions secretary to challenge the operation of the WCA, on the grounds that it potentially discriminates against claimants with mental health problems. Article history Society Disability · Benefits UK news More news Related 27 Jul 2012 Society daily 27.07.12 12 Jul 2011 New disability benefit test 'driven by cuts' 11 May 2011 Disabled people protest against Atos Origin - video 21 Oct 2009 Second thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Let's see what the program brings to light, as blind people, people with cancer have been found fit for work. There are some people who don't deserve to be on benefits, people with acne (or any other pointless illness), but serious conditions should be taken on their own merit. That's because they are. Stop doing those that are able to work with sometimes extremely debilitating illnesses a disservice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 That's because they are. Stop doing those that are able to work with sometimes extremely debilitating illnesses a disservice. Agree to a point but it depends on the individual. This is where the rigid classification process breaks down. Somebody with cancer might still be fairly physically fit and pass an assessment on that basis, but be mentally all over the place and unable to work because of their mental state. But for others with the same illness going to work and keeping their normal routines might actually be the best medicine for them. In the latter case telling somebody they are unfit for work could be just as bad as telling the mentally unstable patient they are fit for work. Quite simply it looks like the assessments are not rigorous enough or detailed enough. It's like they were drawn up on the back of a fag packet. And from what I've seen it's outrageous that many people are put through massive unwarranted stress at what for many of them is the worst time of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.