UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2023 (including government plans to scrap the work capability assessment)

Government's official response to the WCA Consultation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...sment-activities-and-descriptors-consultation

 

"Amending the LCWRA Substantial Risk regulations to realign Substantial Risk with its original intention of only applying in exceptional circumstances. We will specify the circumstances, and physical and mental health conditions, for which LCWRA Substantial Risk should apply. This will include protecting and safeguarding the most vulnerable, including people in crisis and those with active psychotic illness. We will work with clinicians to define the criteria and what medical evidence is required from claimants and people involved in their care, to ensure the process is safe, fair, and clear."

i wonder if ME/CFS will be specifically included, or indeed otherwise.

 

elsewhere, mobility and getting about downgraded, continence and social engagement stay the same. it's about half of what they were talking about. the above is the thing that really sticks out tho

 

lucky really that we can trust our charities to respond to these consultations so forcefully and put our case in such a way that makes it clear how much we'd struggle to work, oh hang on -

 

it certainly wont be included - remember the NHS website considers the main ME/CFS symptom to be "extreme tiredness". Considering most of the working population consider themselves to be extremely tired every day, they certainly will not view it as a risk to us to do more than we are capable.

 

from Autumn statement live updates (benefitsandwork.co.uk)

There isnt an emoji for the depth of despair i am in right now. There is no way for me to stay in the LCWRA or SG at next assessment after this is imposed. You only need 15 points to qualify for the LCW group, i score 96 across the rest of the descriptors but the only SG descriptor i qualified for was the mobilising one.
I mean i do get that someone who is perfectly health but cant mobilise 50m due to a bad leg or something, should be able to do *some kind of WRA, from home. But they refuse to grasp that many people are ILL

 

"Amend the regulations that determine whether mental health issues are assessed as putting claimants at ‘Substantial Risk’ if they are required to undertake any level of work preparation - these amendments will realign the regulations with the original intention of applying only in exceptional circumstances, whilst still protecting and safeguarding the most vulnerable"
That's interesting. I guess this will hinge on whether ME/CFS will be defined as physical then. It should be obviously, and going back a long way it always has been in terms of benefit awards. but ofc i'm sure we all know the drill here

 

its got nothing to do with whther they define as physical or not, it will apply mostly to people who will likely commit suicide if they are forced into it, or would be likely to harm someone. Its about whether they deem it serious enough. I imagine it will cover conditions such as paranoid schizophrenia etc.

EDIT: i was wrong about this, pls see Simbindi's later post

 

That's a handfu1 compared to the over 2 mi11ion c1aimants in this group.

 

We rea11y need our ME charities to step up now and write to MPs and ministers to ensure they recognise the risk of serious deterioration for PWME if they are asked to engage even in WRA that is designed by uniformed work coaches (and even just having to try to engage with a work coach is too much for severe sufferers). It shou1d be high1ighted that these work coaches are not medica11y qua1ified. The one I had when in the WRA group refused to even 1ook at my medica1 fi1es (I brought them into my 2nd in person interview as evidence).

 

If they scored it accurate1y then I'd qua1ify on severa1 descriptors but the assessors don't do this. It's the same with the PIP. If they 1ooked at my scores they wou1d think I'm much 1ess severe1y impacted by both the ME and the autism/ADHD then I am (just because I can string a few words together).

When I receive my PIP '1ight touch review' I'm going to add fu11 answers on additiona1 sheets to make this c1ear now that the same company wi11 be doing the WCA and PIP reviews (and if 1abour get in they may keep the WCA unti1 they work out their own we1fare reforms).

 

Yeah @think_that_it_might, as of your question above it’s gonna be otherwise. For all the reasons that have applied historically but mainly to fuck over the LC cohort. Everyone said ‘don’t worry, they’ll be more research at least now with everyone falling out of the work place, dropping like flies, they’ll to start treating it seriously!’ I said they wouldn’t. Everyone started telling me that maybe I had depression and needed help. Call me and the rest of us, Cassandra, because well no they just need to up the punishments.

Did any ME charities apart from MEA respond to the consultation?

The MEA response is a disappointment. Underplays the seriousness of ME, as well as the potential consequences to claimants the point of being counterproductive. An astonishing misrepresentation.

Does Ellie JonesWelfare RightsAdviser understand welfare rights?
Or did Charles Shepherd and or Russell Fleming
Head of Communications
not understand the stakes
, what was required?

Hopefully @Simbindi as you mention maybe there is a full challenge hidden somewhere and what you linked to isn’t it.

But if not I assume that a contributing factor to the low effort content, is a certain complacency over who will be in government and who won’t be. But I’d be surprised if at least Charles Shepherd wasn’t aware that vintage New Labour brought in welfare reform and began the poisoning of the well, in public perception of disabled people in earnest. Payed the ground work for the coalition government to bring in austerity. Added to which Labour generally very keen to tow the austere line in the lead up to this election.

I really think MEA ought to take the threat to their members means of survival in this whole thing a bit more seriously. If only because the rhetoric around this will in and of itself endanger lives. Abuse against disabled people will likely increase. Social exclusion and shame will likely lead to suicides.

 

So they recognise some peop1e who can't mobi1ise aren't ab1e to undertake even home working, but they wou1d on1y get the LCWRA if they a1so can't undertake work re1ated activity (which they wi11 argue can be as simp1e as making a 1ist of hobbies etc.). Which is effective1y cutting the benefits of peop1e who wi11 never be ab1e to work but can make a 1ist. It's Kafka writ 1arge.

 

Yes. Abso1ute1y this.

It wi11 a1so break apart fami1ies.

 

I'd advise anyone fi11ing out either a WCA form or a PIP form to cite the fo11owing piece from the NICE guide1ines at the start. If you don't consider yourse1f severe, then you can high1ight that activity can (or has in the past) make your ME worse.

 

Ah, i stand corrected re the substantial risk rule, thanks for that. Will edit my post

From the benefits and work live updates on the autumn statement, now this...

EDited: to remove smileys as I'm sure i must be misinterpreting it - sounds like it might be good for some people but???

 

If mild moderate level ME and forced to work which would be many times more demanding than the CBT via GET process, the % of victims of prolonged PEM moving into permanent loss of function moving into severe or very severe ME states would be an experiment that would almost certainly lead to a coroners enquiry or few.

 

Anyone fi11ing out the WCA (or appea1ing a decision) needs to make sure they refer to the harm work preparation (not just work) wi11 cause their physica1 hea1th. You a1so need to be aware of what your 1oca1 jobcentre may expect in terms of this. I referred to DWP documentation on this in ear1ier posts. They may say they on1y expect things 1ike writing a 1ist of hobbies, or making a CV. So you need to cite some specific examp1es. I'd inc1ude the process of just engaging with a work coach, inabi1ity to answer messages in a time1y fashion (e.g. in the UC work journa1), engage in a phone ca11 etc.