Delayed until at least November 2008 because of I.T.

£31.25m to spend on the IT contract. I think that is disgusting to spend such an amount on fat cat IT companies who have a proven track record of getting it wrong.

Something else – disability and sickness are not identical concepts. Changing attitudes to disability is all well and good, but there is no scientific basis for believing that sickness is wholly a state of mind. Such theories have been posited at times, hell, we’ve had psychic surgeons and cancer cures by visualisation, but proponents are widely believed to be quacks. Work might be good for disabled people, but are work-focussed interviews good for the health of sick people? Doctors are to be told to change their attitudes to sickness, and jobcentre or contracted advisors will be involving themselves with ‘condition management’. Hello.

Not only is the amount of information the State will collect on an individual as a condition of obtaining benefit enormously intrusive (not just current circumstances, but life history), it is intruding into the doctor /patient relationship and overriding the individual’s right to make judgements and decisions concerning their own health.

Rights and responsibilities, my ass.

Why does the government think that people will be willing to tell advisors intimate details of their health problems, or that it has a right to the information? Oh yes, if they don't...

sorry, steve, yes, i do think it's disgusting that the welfare state is being so corrupted by a labour government.

i'd like to know just how much tax-payer's money it plans to spend to trash the contributory scheme, replace it with an extended super-plus means-testing, the like of which we have never seen before, (we'd like to know a little bit about you for our files...) and hold a giveaway bonanza for IT and other private contractors, throwing in some cheap labour as a bonus. it's all a bit quite on the sums front...

The ESA is intended to reflect JSA in having both contributory and means-tested versions, so it isn't just replacing incapacity benefit but income support for people who are incapable of work. An astonishingly high number of people currently in the "incapacity" group are actually not entitled to the contributory benefit at all (probably at least half of those going to appeals).

Brigid

the statistics are interesting. about 64% if the 2.73 m IB claimants receive IB (1.75m) and around 980,000 are credits only cases.

incapacity cases make up 56% of the 2.12 million IS case load and amount to 1.18 m claims. my (admittedly dodgy) maths makes this around 201,000 IB + IS claimants, with the vast majority of IB beneficiaries claiming IB only - probably mortgage cases, now that children are out of the assessment.

the vast majority of PCA appeals that i see however, are credits only cases, as you say...but it does raise some interesting question...particularly for welfare reform.

what explains the disproportionate pattern of PCA appeals?

what will be the impact of extended means-testing on the currently relatively unproblematic 1.5 million IB claimants?



http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/Stats_Summary_nov_2006.pdf?x=1

I think Brigid is correct in the assumption that ‘ESA is intended to reflect JSA in having both contributory and means-tested versions’. I understand that ESA will be delivered from Oct 08 via the JSA, and not the Incap, computer system. No doubt also initially, the ESA rates may also be the same/similar to JSA.

I haven’t read the ESA white paper, so I don’t know yet what the cont conditions will be. If the cont conditions change to be similar to JSA, then, as the JSA cont condition is stricter than IB, there will be more ‘income based/means tested’ ESA customers.

As for ‘jj’s ‘disproportionate pattern of PCA appeals’ amongst credits only claims, I would suggest that this is simply down to the customer base. Some customers do accept that they are now ‘fit for work/able to do something’ after failing PCA, and return to work/claim JSA, and don’t appeal. Some do not.

As to why 980000 don’t qualify for IB – they simply haven’t satisfied the IB cont conditions.

The PCA medical jacket of course, only contains the relevant medical info, and it’s irrelevant for the PCA assessment if the customer is getting IB or is credits only. In addition, except for DLA, Atos don’t know what benefit is/is not being paid.

I understand that, as usual, all customers on IB/IBY when ESA will be introduced are to be Transitionally Protected (TP). A similar TP applied to old Invalidity Benefit claims when IB was introduced in 1995.

I knew this wouldn't be the end of it, even more money given to the IT providers which should be spent on the people who are too ill to work.

£31.25m is just a starter. It is vastly more expensive to develop IT for a means-tested benefit than a contributory benefit, as indeed it is, to administer a means-tested system.

i regret that the green paper was so agenda-controlling, and did not engage openly and frankly with the fact that in terms of the social security system, the radical shake-up is a rejection of the contributory principle of social insurance, in favour of extended means-testing, and in particular, the introduction of conditionality, effectively, on an individual basis. i suspect most workers prefer the deal where the payment of their money earns them (universal)rights.

seems the government isn't that keen, doesn't do history very well, and seems to believe in the divine right to receive national insurance contributions...

in any event, if ministers have identified "a loss of self esteem" from being on benefits, i'm struggling to understand why they think having to provide (in addition to all the means-testing information even ESA(CB) claimant's may have to give in order to get through CMS!) details of their entire employment history, education and qualifications, skills, treatment and therapy, limitations and difficulties, needs, to attend interviews when required, agree action plans and all the rest...without feeling a tad brow-beaten.
it's possible of course that, with re-education, people my come to perceive this as more carrot-like than stick-like, but i'm struggling...there are no provisions for ECT, lobotomies or lap-dancing personal advisers in the WRB - maybe only the sanctions are regulated, and the goodies are kept in the operational safeguards slush fund...?

i don't mean to draw a judgemental division between the way IB beneficiaries and IS/credits only cases are treated - having some yardstick to be 'treated equally with' is of some benefit to those who have not recently, or have never been connected with the labour market. (this group is likely to include the most 'socially excluded', and with over half of PCA decisions being overturned on appeal, i don't think any assumptions should be made as to why credit only cases are over-represented in the appeal statistics. it's also clear that EMP's will know immediately they ask about work history, if a person, for whatever reason, has never worked. this should not of course, influence an objective assessment, but does it?) my point is that means-testing is widely seen as demeaning, and an extension of means-test misery may have unforeseen consequences which are not beneficial.

incidentally, section 39 of the bill does make a distinction between means-tested benefits and other benefits in provision of information to prescribed persons.

simply abolishing the concept of 'too ill to work' as 'old-think' is a very sophisticated ambition...still at the delusion stage, imho. i am concerned that the regime may be bad for people's health, result in undesirable social consequences, and i fear that it could induce suicides, something i am very strongly opposed to.

on the other hand, a website and helpline on how to make the workplace healthier is probably not a bad idea...