________________________________________
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of DISABILITY-RESEARCH automatic digest system [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 March 2014 00:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: DISABILITY-RESEARCH Digest - 3 Mar 2014 to 4 Mar 2014 (#2014-50)
There are 4 messages totaling 1009 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fwd: Personal Independence Payment: early progress (2)
2. Personal Independence Payment: early progress (2)
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:39:01 +0000
From: Liz Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fwd: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
not research but please sign and share.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Damien Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
> Date: 4 March 2014 18:28:04 GMT
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Hi there, following the death of a gentleman last week who had his benefits stopped under the new PIP criteria, I'd like to call for a Judicial Review into it's implementation.
>
> The Government have commissioned Atos and Capita to undertake assessments and firstly I'd like a report into how they're undertaking these. If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.
>
> If this type of culture is in place then I'd like to see a Judicial Review into how PIP has been undertaken and how fair the testing is in it's current form.
>
> To help get a report, and potentially a Judicial Review, I have created a petition. Please read and sign if you agree, as these tests if carried out in a way which is not fair or unbiased, could affect millions of vulnerable people.
>
> The link is here, please share it. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61731
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> ------------------
>
> To contribute to this discussion reply by e-mail to this message. To start a new topic please reply using a new subject heading.
>
> To view, or reply to this message on the forum website and to see previous messages in this discussion, please visit: http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?13@@.39024026/0 Messages with attachments are welcome. Please forward them to [log in to unmask]
>
> To unsubscribe from this forum or network please reply to this email saying that you wish to unsubscribe, or to join it, please e-mail [log in to unmask]
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion go to http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?unsub@@.39024026/0!u=2d0f08e3
>
> The content or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities unless otherwise specifically stated.
>
> Please check out any goods/services/products mentioned in forum/network messages before committing yourself - Being mentioned on the forum/network does not constitute a recommendation from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:44:50 -0800
From: Bertha Mo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
This is horrific. Do you have to be a UK citizen to sign petition?
Bertie Mo in Ottawa Canada
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:39:05 PM, Liz Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
not research but please sign and share.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Damien Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
>
>Date: 4 March 2014 18:28:04 GMT
>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Hi there, following the death of a gentleman last week who had his benefits stopped under the new PIP criteria, I'd like to call for a Judicial Review into it's implementation.
>
>The Government have commissioned Atos and Capita to undertake assessments and firstly I'd like a report into how they're undertaking these. If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.
>
>If this type of culture is in place then I'd like to see a Judicial Review into how PIP has been undertaken and how fair the testing is in it's current form.
>
>To help get a report, and potentially a Judicial Review, I have created a petition. Please read and sign if you agree, as these tests if carried out in a way which is not fair or unbiased, could affect millions of vulnerable people.
>
>The link is here, please share it. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61731
>
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>------------------
>
>To contribute to this discussion reply by e-mail to this message. To start a new topic please reply using a new subject heading.
>
>To view, or reply to this message on the forum website and to see previous messages in this discussion, please visit: http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?13@@.39024026/0 Messages with attachments are welcome. Please forward them to [log in to unmask]
>
>To unsubscribe from this forum or network please reply to this email saying that you wish to unsubscribe, or to join it, please e-mail [log in to unmask]
>
>To unsubscribe from this discussion go to http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?unsub@@.39024026/0!u=2d0f08e3
>
>The content or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities unless otherwise specifically stated.
>
>Please check out any goods/services/products mentioned in forum/network messages before committing yourself - Being mentioned on the forum/network does not constitute a recommendation from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:50:20 +0000
From: Paul Swann <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
>>>If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.<<<
To my knowledge, this is not the case.
Multiple problems have arisen in the initial implementation phase, resulting in applications taking 6 months or more to process.
In Capita’s case, the main problem seems to lie with the assessment audit process, which requires new Disability Assessors (DAs) to achieve 5 consecutive ‘Grade As’ on their submitted assessments. This is designed to ensure that assessment processes are as high quality, empathic and user friendly as possible. However, combined with problems in getting auditors up to speed, this has created a huge backlog.
The DA role is only available to health care professionals, but is quite different to what they’re used to as they’re required to assess the impact of impairments and health conditions on daily living, not to diagnose and address medical conditions. No doubt some recruits are finding this role less attractive than they’d hoped.
Capita anticipated that 70% of cases would involve face to face interviews, whereas it’s actually 98%, 60% of which are being conducted via home visits.
Also, interviews were expected to last an hour (including paperwork) but in practice it’s taking 2½ hours.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of assessments is good...far better than with Work Capability Assessments.
DWP released some initial statistics a couple of weeks ago which show that so far, only 15.4% of claims have been decided, i.e. 34,200 out of 220,300. Of those, 37% were awarded PIP. The award rate under DLA in 2011 was 43%.
This means only 12,654 claimants out of 220,300 were successful. The UK government anticipate that the PIP eligibility criteria will eliminate 600,000 Disability Living Allowance recipients.
In view of the above and other issues - including reduced availability of welfare rights advisers, which may be a factor in a lower than expected return of PIP claim forms - third sector representatives on the PIP Implementation Stakeholder Forum are seeking a moratorium on rollout.
Paul
On 4 Mar 2014, at 20:39, Liz Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> not research but please sign and share.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Damien Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
>> Date: 4 March 2014 18:28:04 GMT
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Hi there, following the death of a gentleman last week who had his benefits stopped under the new PIP criteria, I'd like to call for a Judicial Review into it's implementation.
>>
>> The Government have commissioned Atos and Capita to undertake assessments and firstly I'd like a report into how they're undertaking these. If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.
>>
>> If this type of culture is in place then I'd like to see a Judicial Review into how PIP has been undertaken and how fair the testing is in it's current form.
>>
>> To help get a report, and potentially a Judicial Review, I have created a petition. Please read and sign if you agree, as these tests if carried out in a way which is not fair or unbiased, could affect millions of vulnerable people.
>>
>> The link is here, please share it. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61731
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> To contribute to this discussion reply by e-mail to this message. To start a new topic please reply using a new subject heading.
>>
>> To view, or reply to this message on the forum website and to see previous messages in this discussion, please visit: http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?13@@.39024026/0 Messages with attachments are welcome. Please forward them to [log in to unmask]
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this forum or network please reply to this email saying that you wish to unsubscribe, or to join it, please e-mail [log in to unmask]
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this discussion go to http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?unsub@@.39024026/0!u=2d0f08e3
>>
>> The content or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities unless otherwise specifically stated.
>>
>> Please check out any goods/services/products mentioned in forum/network messages before committing yourself - Being mentioned on the forum/network does not constitute a recommendation from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
>
> ________________End of message________________
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:45:00 +0000
From: Tom <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
I can also add that pip appeals are taking about twice as long in tribunal as initially expected.
Sent from my iPad
> On 4 Mar 2014, at 21:50, Paul Swann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >>>If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.<<<
>
> To my knowledge, this is not the case.
>
> Multiple problems have arisen in the initial implementation phase, resulting in applications taking 6 months or more to process.
>
> In Capita’s case, the main problem seems to lie with the assessment audit process, which requires new Disability Assessors (DAs) to achieve 5 consecutive ‘Grade As’ on their submitted assessments. This is designed to ensure that assessment processes are as high quality, empathic and user friendly as possible. However, combined with problems in getting auditors up to speed, this has created a huge backlog.
>
> The DA role is only available to health care professionals, but is quite different to what they’re used to as they’re required to assess the impact of impairments and health conditions on daily living, not to diagnose and address medical conditions. No doubt some recruits are finding this role less attractive than they’d hoped.
>
> Capita anticipated that 70% of cases would involve face to face interviews, whereas it’s actually 98%, 60% of which are being conducted via home visits.
>
> Also, interviews were expected to last an hour (including paperwork) but in practice it’s taking 2½ hours.
>
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of assessments is good...far better than with Work Capability Assessments.
>
> DWP released some initial statistics a couple of weeks ago which show that so far, only 15.4% of claims have been decided, i.e. 34,200 out of 220,300. Of those, 37% were awarded PIP. The award rate under DLA in 2011 was 43%.
>
> This means only 12,654 claimants out of 220,300 were successful. The UK government anticipate that the PIP eligibility criteria will eliminate 600,000 Disability Living Allowance recipients.
>
> In view of the above and other issues - including reduced availability of welfare rights advisers, which may be a factor in a lower than expected return of PIP claim forms - third sector representatives on the PIP Implementation Stakeholder Forum are seeking a moratorium on rollout.
>
> Paul
>
>> On 4 Mar 2014, at 20:39, Liz Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> not research but please sign and share.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Damien Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Personal Independence Payment: early progress
>>> Date: 4 March 2014 18:28:04 GMT
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> Hi there, following the death of a gentleman last week who had his benefits stopped under the new PIP criteria, I'd like to call for a Judicial Review into it's implementation.
>>>
>>> The Government have commissioned Atos and Capita to undertake assessments and firstly I'd like a report into how they're undertaking these. If there is any element of bonuses or hitting targets within the implementation then I think this is not only wrong, but illegal, as it would undermine any objective process.
>>>
>>> If this type of culture is in place then I'd like to see a Judicial Review into how PIP has been undertaken and how fair the testing is in it's current form.
>>>
>>> To help get a report, and potentially a Judicial Review, I have created a petition. Please read and sign if you agree, as these tests if carried out in a way which is not fair or unbiased, could affect millions of vulnerable people.
>>>
>>> The link is here, please share it. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61731
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> To contribute to this discussion reply by e-mail to this message. To start a new topic please reply using a new subject heading.
>>>
>>> To view, or reply to this message on the forum website and to see previous messages in this discussion, please visit: http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?13@@.39024026/0 Messages with attachments are welcome. Please forward them to [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this forum or network please reply to this email saying that you wish to unsubscribe, or to join it, please e-mail [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this discussion go to http://www.choiceforum.org/WebX?unsub@@.39024026/0!u=2d0f08e3
>>>
>>> The content or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities unless otherwise specifically stated.
>>>
>>> Please check out any goods/services/products mentioned in forum/network messages before committing yourself - Being mentioned on the forum/network does not constitute a recommendation from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
>>
>> ________________End of message________________
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>>
>
> ________________End of message________________
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
------------------------------
End of DISABILITY-RESEARCH Digest - 3 Mar 2014 to 4 Mar 2014 (#2014-50)
***********************************************************************
Copyright in this email and in any attachments belongs to London South Bank University. This email, and its attachments if any, may be confidential or legally privileged and is intended to be seen only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please note the following: (1) You should take immediate action to notify the sender and delete the original email and all copies from your computer systems; (2) You should not read copy or use the contents of the email nor disclose it or its existence to anyone else. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and should not be taken as those of London South Bank University, unless this is specifically stated. London South Bank University is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales. The following details apply to London South Bank University: Company number - 00986761; Registered office and trading address - 103 Borough Road London SE1 0AA; VAT number - 778 1116 17 Email address - [log in to unmask]
|
