Yesterday was a big day for The Broken of Britain as the formal rollout of ESA had finally alerted the media to these benefits changes. Around 10am, Kaliya started to tweet on the topic under the hashtag #fitforwork with enormous success. Below is a summary of the changes that we prepared for the press:
Major Points
1. ESA is not fit for purpose. The system is badly designed, in terms of eligibility testing and the process of claiming the benefit
2. WCA is not fit for purpose. Test for eligibility does not work correctly, with many wrongly found fit for work and a high percentage of appeals
3. the appeals procedure is not fit for purpose. People are automatically assigned to the lower rate of ESA while appealing. This loss of income makes it harder to appeal
4. WRAG is not fit for purpose. Unfair conditions imposed so that many claimants must work for their benefits when unfit to do so
5. The Government is planning to time-limit ESA to one year, meaning that claimants will be means-tested after a year. If the claimant’s partner or spouse works more the 24 hours a week, they will lose the benefit. This punishes working families.
Supplementary notes
claimants must undergo this work capability assessment (WCA) to determine whether they are eligible for a replacement benefit, employment support allowance (ESA)
over the next three years 1.5 million people currently claiming Incapacity Benefit will undergo the work capability assessment, carried out by a medical and IT company, Atos
a complex computer program will help a team of "disability analysts" to rule on who is sufficiently fit for work
the estimated fraud rate for Incapacity benefit is 0.5% - the joint-lowest fraud rate in the benefits system according to the latest available data - so why is this benefit seen as being so problematic?
media focus on 859,000 people claiming sickness and disability benefits for over 10 years, ignoring the fact that sickness and disability is often a long-term problemthe system has been in place for new claimants since 2008, but will be expanded to retest all existing IB claimants from the start of this month
11,000 existing claimants will be retested every week
the new test is tougher than the old version, and the government expects to save £1bn over five years by encouraging people into work, or failing that on to a lower-paid benefit
speakers at a meeting between MPs on the Work and Pensions Select Committee and claimants who were part of the pilot of ESA gave negative accounts of their experience of being tested
the test has been vigorously criticised by charities such as Citizens Advice and by a government-commissioned independent review, saying that the process is impersonal, and ill-equipped to gauge the seriousness of mental health conditions, or the nuances of complex medical problems.
many undergoing the WCA felt it was assumed that they are lying or exaggerating
the WCA is physically-oriented, and uses a list of limited and disjointed ‘descriptors’ – such as the distance the claimant can walk and for how long they can stand – to assign points
15 points are required for a claimant to be declared unfit for work, with points ‘awarded’ on the basis of ability to do things like picking up a one pound coin
written evidence including specialist medical advice is all but ignored and the
face-to-face assessment means that only a ‘snapshot’ consideration is made, disadvantaging those with mental health problems or hidden conditions
the WCA test is not fit for purpose, frequently declaring people with serious health conditions fit for work on the basis of how many points are scored
during the preliminary roll-out of the test, people with terminal cancer, multiple sclerosis and serious mental illnesses have been found fit to work
the health care professionals (HCP) who run the WCA are not necessarily doctors, and may well have no knowledge about the medical condition of the claimant they are assessing
people with mental health problems have complained their condition is not taken seriously
people with complex illnesses report that the tick-box system is not able to cope with the nuances of their problems
one claimant has originally been given zero points in the assessment, despite having multiple sclerosis, and providing a letter from a surgeon stating they were too ill to work
in pilots 30% fewer people have been found unfit for work and 70% fewer people have been found eligible for the full-rate, unconditional support benefit
a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions found that health care professionals (HCP) wanted more supplementary medical evidence to help them make decisions, and more discretion over individual cases
Prof. Paul Gregg, a prominent welfare reform expert, recently told The Guardian that: "The test is badly malfunctioning. The current assessment is a complete mess,"
Gregg, who helped design the new ESA, recommends a further trial before it is introduced nationally
since early 2009, more than 240,000 cases contesting the result of the health tests have been accepted for tribunal hearings
in total, 40% of claimants whose claims are disallowed appeal the decision
40% of appeals are successful, with decisions overturned at tribunal – this figure rises to 70-80% when the claimant has representation
when appealing a decision claimants are automatically assigned the lower rate of ESA
a report commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions found that the loss of income for those on the higher rate of IB made it more difficult to appeal
an independent review of the WCA in November 2010 found serious flaws in the way it was functioning and called for major improvements
the government has promised to implement these recommendations, some politicians, charity workers and academics think the roll-out is going ahead too fast
beyond the immediate issue of the WCA, the work-related activity group is symptomatic of the deeper problem in ESA
the WCA can assign people to the WRAG, where ESA is conditional on work-related activity, and the Support Group, where the benefit is paid at a higher rate and without conditions
the WRAG and Support Group are not clearly defined in terms of purpose, but are often thought of as the ‘group for those who will eventually be fit for work’ and ‘will never be fit for work’
very many severely disabled people who will never be fit for work wrongly assigned to WRAG
a report commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions found that staff involved with ESA were concerned about process issues, such as delays and IT problems, and
more substantive issues such as the allocation of customers to particular claim
outcome group (WRAG or Support Group)
a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions found that advisers felt that the scope for helping many claimants in WRAG back to work was limited
providers targeting adviser resources explicitly on those closer to the labour market, so that even those in WRAG are given limited support unless they are very close to being fit for work
a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions found that there are risks attached to the significant involvement of for-profit organisations.
They are likely to follow profit maximisation strategies shaped by contract
incentives and this may not necessarily deliver what is best for clients, especially for those with greater barriers
a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions found that several US interventions on “back-to-work” schemes for disability benefit claimants have shown no impacts on caseload size
the Department for Work and Pensions knew about all the problems with ESA before it was implemented. Why did they proceed?
