Skip to main content

Work Capability Assessment undermining mental health

Since 2010 the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), has been used to assess the eligibility of claimants for out of work disability benefit.  In introducing WCA the government claimed it was a measure to get more people back into the workplace and help curb the government’s rising welfare bill, with the implication that many of those on benefits were 'shirkers'.  It was all part of the government's political narrative of 'workers' versus 'shirkers'.

The government were warned by health professionals that the harsher assessments would have major impact on mental health.

At the outset there were problems with the way fitness to work was being made and doubts that those making the assessments would have the necessary expertise and experience to make an assessment of how any particular mental condition impacts on the life of the claimant.

Doctors and disability rights organisations have long voiced fears that use of the tough new criteria to measure incapacity to work is undermining the mental health of claimants.  These concerns were voiced in this blog in an article published two years ago. However, up till now, there has been no hard evidence to substantiate these concerns.

Now new evidence published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health confirms that the introduction of the more stringent test to assess eligibility for disability benefit in England may have taken a “serious” toll on mental health.

Areas with the greatest use of the WCA in assessing existing claimants have seen the sharpest rises in reported suicides, mental health issues, and antidepressant prescribing, the findings show, prompting the researchers to question the wisdom of introducing this policy.

To find out if there was any link between use of the WCA and a rise in the prevalence of mental health issues, the researchers analysed the numbers of disability assessments carried out in 149 local authorities in England between 2004 and 2013.

They looked at local trends in suicide rates among 18 to 64 year olds; antidepressant prescribing patterns; and Labour Force Survey data on self-reported mental health issues among the working population in each local authority.

Between 2010 and 2013, more than one million people claiming disability benefit were reassessed using the WCA.  Furthermore, a higher proportion of people living in areas of deprivation were reassessed, putting added pressure of people already struggling.  The findings of the study are stark.

In areas with higher rates of reassessment, there was a corresponding increase in suicides, mental health issues, and antidepressant prescribing.

After taking account of the impact of baseline deprivation, economic trends, and long term trends in mental health, the researchers calculated that, there were around six extra suicides, 2700 more cases of mental ill health, and an extra 7020 prescriptions for individual antidepressants for every 10,000 people reassessed during this period.

This adds up to a total of 590 additional suicides, 279,000 extra cases of mental ill health and 725,000 more prescriptions for antidepressants across the country as a whole that were associated with the reassessment policy between 2010 and 2013.

This is an observational study, so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. None the less, the researchers point out that they were at pains to adjust for other potentially influential factors, and that the observed increases in mental ill health followed—rather than preceded—the reassessment process.

The findings have important implications for the WCA policy particularly as this was introduced without any evidence of its potential impact or any plans to evaluate its effects. A further 1 million people will have been reassessed this year.

As I have repeatedly argued in this blog, the policy raises ethical issues for the doctors involved, given that they have professional and statutory duties to protect the health of patients and the public.  The authors say their study provides evidence  that the policy in England of reassessing the eligibility of disability benefit recipients using the WCA may have unintended but serious consequences for population mental health, and there is a danger that these adverse effects outweigh any benefits that may or may not arise from moving people off disability benefits.

“Although the explicit aim of welfare reform in the UK is to reduce ‘dependency,’ it is likely that targeting the people living in the most vulnerable conditions with policies that are harmful to health, will further marginalise already excluded groups, reducing, rather than increasing, their independence,” they conclude.

Peoples' lives are a narrative. They are not disjointed bits of data. Disability isn't simply a problem confined to the individual as a physical being but also as a social being. The social condition can have as much of an impact as any measure of 'disability'; circumstances can be disabling. How any particular condition affects a person's capabilities may vary with time, with geography and with other physical or mental conditions. In short the way in which any condition can be disabling is complex. Sometimes it is the very complexity that is disabling. Disabilities are most often multifaceted.

The government chose to ignore concerns that assessment was being made by inexperienced staff and that such assessments would have major impact on the mental health of claimants. 

In evidence presented jointly to the 3rd yearly review of WCA mental health organisations had said:

“We believe that, without expertise in the causal conditions, healthcare professionals are not sufficiently equipped to understand why and how function may be impaired or to elicit the relevant information from an applicant who may have… difficulties in reporting their condition” (joint response from the Centre for Mental Health, HAFAL, the Mental Health Foundation, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and SAMH )

This new evidence supports the contention that tougher disability benefit assessment is taking a “serious” toll on mental health with higher reassessment rate being linked to more suicides, mental ill health, and antidepressant use. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As