75% of Incapacity Benefit claimants FAIL new test

[Eric Mc]

Globulator said:

Eric Mc said:

Although, as is already a fact, many who have been passed as fit to work have genuinely not been fit. I heard of a case earlier this week where a person was passed fit and within a month was dead.

Lot's of apparently fit people drop dead, the fact one was on benefits doesn't change that.

They diede friom the illness that put them on benefit in the first place. The point of the story was that they were definitely sick - butr the assessor -[passed them fit for work.

I agree that many people are claiming a benefit they should not be claiming. However, this simplified asessment system is very badly flawed and merely declaring that someone is fit for work is no guarantee that they will find a job or even be offered one. So, as I said earlier, they will end up on some other benefit.

[Eric Mc]

tinman0 said:

I do find it odd that many "ill" people seem to think that it's unseemly to be tested so they can be assessed for free cash.

All society is asking is that if you need free cash is for an assessment to be made. Yet some people feel that that is too much to ask of them. Too ill to be assessed because it offends their sensibilities.

I think any sensible person would agree that an assessment be made. The issue is the quality of the assessor and the accuracy of their assessments.

[Globulator]

Eric Mc said:

They died friom the illness that put them on benefit in the first place. The point of the story was that they were definitely sick - but the assessor - passed them fit for work.

In that case the blame lies squarely on the chancers and cheaters who have played the system and made it difficult for the genuine cases.

[markcoznottz]

Should be easy to weed out the truely mentally ill. 5 minutes with thier medical file would show previous courses of medication, hospital stays etc etc, maybe even brain scans but thats unlikely.

The desicion to put these people on funny money was political, as mentioned, its highly suspicious areas of deprivation concidentally have the highest number of claiments. Looking at this government though the whole thing smacks of window dressing, it would take any of us about 5 minutes to weed out the chancers, (about 50%), then a detailed look at the remaining cases would identify genuine cases. The acid test is has any claimant had thier money stopped.

[petemurphy]

that stat means nothing as all those who fail will go to a tribunel which costs yet more money for a taxpayer and many are successful and then get the benefit.

i dont see whats new about this test its been going here for 2 years at least?

[Eric Mc]

Globulator said:

Eric Mc said:

They died friom the illness that put them on benefit in the first place. The point of the story was that they were definitely sick - but the assessor - passed them fit for work.

In that case the blame lies squarely on the chancers and cheaters who have played the system and made it difficult for the genuine cases.

I agree. But care must be taken so that only the cheaters are thrown off the system. The curent set-up is not working and is far too crude.

[Eric Mc]

markcoznottz said:

Should be easy to weed out the truely mentally ill. 5 minutes with thier medical file would show previous courses of medication, hospital stays etc etc, maybe even brain scans but thats unlikely.

The desicion to put these people on funny money was political, as mentioned, its highly suspicious areas of deprivation concidentally have the highest number of claiments. Looking at this government though the whole thing smacks of window dressing, it would take any of us about 5 minutes to weed out the chancers, (about 50%), then a detailed look at the remaining cases would identify genuine cases. The acid test is has any claimant had thier money stopped.

The assessors do not refer to previous medical or mental health history (they do not have access to it). The assessment is entirely based on the tick box exercise they have been trained to carry out and the interview with the individual.

Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 28th October 08:40

[petemurphy]

Eric Mc said:

markcoznottz said:

Should be easy to weed out the truely mentally ill. 5 minutes with thier medical file would show previous courses of medication, hospital stays etc etc, maybe even brain scans but thats unlikely.

The desicion to put these people on funny money was political, as mentioned, its highly suspicious areas of deprivation concidentally have the highest number of claiments. Looking at this government though the whole thing smacks of window dressing, it would take any of us about 5 minutes to weed out the chancers, (about 50%), then a detailed look at the remaining cases would identify genuine cases. The acid test is has any claimant had thier money stopped.

The assessors do not refer to previous medical or mental health history (they do not have access to it). The assessment is entirely based on the tick box exercise they have been trained to carry out and the interview with the individual.

Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 28th October 08:40

and theres many a guide or companies telling you how to fill in this form.

imho your doc should be the one who signs you off sick but after say 3 months it has to be verified by another doc at another practice.

[Engineer1]

TrevorH said:

So you have trouble walking, or a seriously bad back. If you have transport, what's to stop you doing a desk job? (Provided there are desk jobs available, of course)

Um lets say you are in your 40's/50's and worked as a labourer in a factory, or as a sparky where you damaged your back. Suddenly you need a shed load of qualifications you don't have or an understanding boss who will hire you and train you up.

[elster]

Eric Mc said:

hornetrider said:

Eric Mc said:

hornetrider said:

elster said:

I think the point I am trying to make is that a lot of Doctors who do the assessments at present, are not au fait with what is the minimum requirements.

Edited by elster on Wednesday 27th October 13:04

As I mentioned, there is specific training once the start with Atos - and these people are DOCTORS ffs. All they are assessing is if someone can walk from a to b, hold a pen, type a bit. fk sake, that's all I do in my office job.

We have people in our office on permanent crutches, in a wheelchair, all able to work and contribute to society.

This is long overdue imo.

And how do they assess a person's mental condition?

fk knows, do I look like a doctor to you?!

That's the problem. To assess a persons capability to carry out a wide range of tasks requires quite a detailed amount of medical and psychological knowledge - something that a basic nurse and a quick course on how to fill in a few forms won't provide.

This is what I was trying to say. Told you my words i'nt brilliant.

Edited by elster on Thursday 28th October 16:34

[elster]

mph1977 said:

elster said:

hornetrider said:

My wife has a degree. Maybe they employ occupational therapists as well, who knows? The point is that there are minimum standards for the job (professional qualification) and specific assessment training prior to being allowed to assess claimants.

I don't know if they use OTs, but this is the only part of the nursing sector who are qualified to asses someone's physical and mental ability in being able to do anything. Whether other people do it, more than likely, doesn't mean they are actually qualified to do it.

I think the point I am trying to make is that a lot of Doctors who do the assessments at present, are not au fait with what is the minimum requirements.

Edited by elster on Wednesday 27th October 13:04

Occupational Therapists are NOT Nurses, they are one of the 13 HPC professions.

Both Nurses and OTs could be used in the assessor role but both would require additional training and education to do so.

or once again is an 'expert' opinion being passed by someone who does not know the difference between an Occupational Therapist and Someone who has a Occupational Health / Occupational Medicine qualification.

Conducting a a physical examination, obtaining health history and assessing Activities of Daily living are skills all Health Professionals should have - the exact balance of experience and depth of skills and knowledge depend on the profession.

I know OTs aren't nurses, I know enough of them. They are still part of the nursing sector, unless the definition of nursing has changed since they printed my dictionary.

So you are saying everyone who is a health professional can do the job of an OT? I know Physios who don't even have a clue.

[mph1977]

elster said:

<snip>
I know OTs aren't nurses, I know enough of them. They are still part of the nursing sector, unless the definition of nursing has changed since they printed my dictionary.

So you are saying everyone who is a health professional can do the job of an OT? I know Physios who don't even have a clue.

OTs are not Nurses , they are one of the 13 HPC professions, there is no such thing as a 'Nursing Sector' , they are not managed by Nurses and do not undertake Nursing activities

your assertions about the role of the OT are incorrect as are your insinuations that the system is wrong because it utilises Nurses as a Assessors.

Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 28th October 22:15

[Silverbullet767]

mondeoman said:

Thats a massive save for UK PLC. And its just what we need now. At £95/week, thats 600,000 x £95 x 52 = £3billion a year - I'll have some of that thank you!

That's what they said....