Skip to main content

And the PIPs will squeak! Groundhog day for personal independence payments.

Here we go again. Groundhog day. From April  new rules are to be set for qualification for disability allowance or personal independence payments (PIPs) as they are to become in April. The new assessment according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) "will focus on an individual’s ability to carry out a range of key activities necessary to everyday life." Information will be gathered from the individual, as well as healthcare and other professionals who work with and support them. Most people will also be asked to a face to face consultation with a trained independent assessor as part of the claim process.  From the experience of the Work Capability Assessment, it looks like another recipe for pain and suffering. 

I often wonder who it is that draws up disability or capacity criteria. What kind of person is it that decides if you can go up two steps without being in pain you are 'fit'? What about the third and fourth or subsequent steps? Of course I do like being optimistic; positive thinking is better than negative. "What can you do?" seems a reasonable question to most people. But it isn't; or at least it isn't in isolation. And here is the problem with the parametrics of disability.

 Disability isn't simply an aggregate of each individual parametric; they interact in often unpredictable ways. They have qualitative as well as quantitative features, and often whilst the latter are easier to 'measure' the former is sometimes what makes any problem disabling. It is how it affects the person.

The problem with what can be measured is that it tends to squeeze out the subjective. "We'll measure this because we can" becomes an underlying principle. Furthermore it appears to be objective.  It is they say 'fair' because it is objective, a yardstick applied to everyone, consistently. Everyone will be 'treated the same'. It sounds fair, but it isn't. Treating people 'the same' isn't at all fair. We are different. People are affected differently depending on circumstance and how any given parameter impacts on their lives. The subjective makes a difference.

The criteria for the 'descriptors' to be used were established after a period of consultation.  Yet, those criteria are already being changed. For example, it has now been decided that those unable to walk greater than 20m will qualify, which has shaved a full 30 m off the previous qualification. I guess that is in the Olympic spirit. We are all for breaking records. But 30 m difference suggest something fishy is going on. it will clearly have a major impact on the numbers qualifying.

Government ministers say it will target those who need it the most. Which is all very well but what about those who simply need it, not 'the most' but do really need it? Those for example who whilst they can walk 20 m would nonetheless be severely unwell if the walked say 30 m?

 Disability is not something that can be measured by a simple yardstick. It is usually multifaceted and affects people in different ways. Circumstances matter. The DWP specifically rules out using 'key factors' such as pain, nausea, breathlessness, motivation, in assessing the 'descriptors'. Most healthcare professionals would be appalled at such an egregious folly.

By including lists of symptoms the DWP says "we might unintentionally narrow the scope of the assessment."  Unintentionally? By leaving them out it intentionally narrows it. They are not only an essential ingredient,  but most often  they are also the critical factors that physically and mentally limit capability. They are of course difficult to measure; how much pain, what type of pain, where is the pain and how it affects function would need to be assessed. But, however difficult they should not be ignored. It would not be ethical to ignore them. Difficulty is not an excuse for poor judgement.

The government are as usual being disingenuous with estimated uptake. The DWP says that 'broadly' the same number of people will receive the benefit. This is an odd calculation when they expect to save a staggering £2bn.  Either those receiving the help will get less or far fewer people will qualify.  Broadly takes a lot of defining. The government can't have it both ways.

Comments

  1. "The DWP says that 'broadly' the same number of people will receive the benefit. This is an odd calculation when they expect to save a staggering £2bn. Either those receiving the help will get less or far fewer people will qualify. Broadly takes a lot of defining. The government can't have it both ways" Spot On Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tanks Jayne. It is what it is all about really isn't it? Cuts.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,