I have been sent a copy of the above, which was released at a recent JC+ forum meeting. Here is a selection of some of the questions:

How do you see your future, from a health and work point of view?

What activities do you currently enjoy, thinking particularly about what may help your health and work prospects?

What do you feel would help you to achieve your future plans in relation to work?

What impact do you feel your medication has on your daily life?

Are you trying other ways to help yourself get better or move towards work?

Can you tell me about any other help that you have had in the past or are currently awaiting that would help you get back to work?

Is there anything that you think would help you to move towards work, or work related activity?

Is there anything that you think would help you to return to your most recent employment?

From the Assessment Report section of the form (for the practitioner to complete) …

Without further intervention the overall condition is likely to: become more significant/improve/fluctuate/be severe/be enduring/unable to predict.

Health and workplace interventions that may assist a return to work include…

In my opinion a return to work could be considered: within 6 months/more than 6 months

*****

At first sight, many of the questions look predictable, given the job that the WFHRA is supposed to perform. However, concerns start to surface, some of which have already been voiced, namely:

1) The assumption that claimants are able to visulaise themselves in a work setting (eg your 'future plans in relation to work' etc)

2) Some claimants might raise doubts about the usefulness of their medication - might this be construed as meaning they are not really sick?!

3) There is the familiar danger that some claimants will try to impress the practitioner with imagined abilities etc (witness familiar problems with IB/DLA)

The WFHRA helps set the tone and the conditionality agenda (see the Assessment Report section above). How are we going to ensure our more vulnerable clients do not talk themselves into trouble?

Steve

The cynic in me says we cannot and it was designed with that express purpose in mind. We will have to start from scratch with case law etc, those with long memories may remember when ICB came in , in1995 the whole point then was to make it harder, and cheaper given it wasn't as generous as Invalidity.
Prior to 1995 the caselaw had reached a stage you were almost guaranteed success for a represented Invalidity appeal as the claimants GP had the final say, ICB was specifically designed to take it away from GPs and give their pet medical services Doctors full and it was hoped final say .
Now 13yrs on I suspect the vast majority of represented or assisted appeals are succesful, so the new legislation was designed makes it harder still and not real purely on medical matters .

Sorry to be so negative but as you know how many people want to appeal what category of disabled or even work capable they are then argue the subsequent levels of work capability and so on , I think many will simply give up, those old enough to remember Invalidity statements such as you can 'sort buttons' or operate a toll booth' I feel we may now start seeing them again. So I don't know enough about ESA yet but training is next month, maybe the one positive is we may be able to resurrect some of that old Invalidity case law so dust off those old Bonner & Mesher in the cupboard.

The most frightening thing for me is lack of automatic exemption so even if someone was tetraplegic, deaf and blind they could be forced to a work focused interview.

Interesting points. I am hoping that some of the significant case law on IB will transfer over to ESA (eg the reasonable regularity issue, abilities only when in pain, the top down approach for descriptors etc).

However, there would appear to be nothing to prevent over optimistic comments from clients in the WFHRA from being used against them at subsequent 'limited capability for work' appeals. To my mind, the very nature of the WFHRA encourages a (possibly unrealistically) optimistic approach, which could be costly in the long run.

Mandatory conditionality may be limited to WFIs and WFHRAs at present, but this means both attending and 'participating' in the WFI and WFHRA processes. If you are not perky enough at these assessments, you may be deemed to have failed to comply, and face a sanction. Could being too perky bring into question your status as sick, bearing in mind we are told that this does not happen in Pathways To Work (ESA's older brother)? I am wondering if claimant's may need 'appropriate perkiness level counselling'- what do you think?

Steve

I think I hate this bastard Tory government!

There is another serious concern - whilst it may not be beyond the ability of the majority of clients to complete this form, there will still be that minority for whom this is a major stumbling block, including those with literacy and/or mental health problems. These claimants counld well represent up to 20% of the claimant population.
If these were to be completed on behalf of a client by well meaning friends or relatives ( as is quite likely) in an articulate and logiocal manner, this could lead to a DM deciding that the claimant has little or no problems with communications and/or comprehension. ......You can see the problems already .....

Thanks to Mike, a copy of the Work Focused Health Related Assessment form is now available on rightsnet -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/WFHRA.pdf

Claimants will not be completing this form - it is very clearly a template for the Health Care Professional to record the discussion with the claimant, prompting them in which questions to ask. It's also clear from the wording that it envisages a discussion on the points, not just one open question, and a record of that discussion, hence the large spaces. So well meaning relatives and over optimistic claimants won't be filling them in in advance of the assessment.

Not that this guarantees the quality of the interview - which is what it ought to be. Good, empathetic health care professionals - maybe especially those who are NOT doctors (see the signature spaces) will probably treat this only as a guideline for structuring the interfview. As for the rest....

Of course, the fact that the form is completed by the interviewer does not inspire any additional confidence - quite possibly the reverse. You only have to look at the accuracy rates of interviews by Medical Services doctors for IB to understand this (they too use versions of templates and complete the 'forms' rather than the interviewee).

It seems increasingly likely that the client will have their 'limited capability for work' assessment and their WFHRA at the same time - I don't think it was ever on the cards that claimants would get forms etc in advance of the actual assessments.

Steve

my two cents worth is that the deceptive notion of 'customised public services - new, improved and modern, we're so great' cannot be comfortably grafted on to a statutory social security system, and is the last nail in the coffin of the national insurance scheme, and the principles and purposes on which it was founded. 'individual conditionality' is far more intrusive and offensive than the means test ever was.

it might, just might, produce worthwhile results, in an ideal world where the service was super-efficient, and well resourced by highly skilled and committed staff, working under a duty of care, with claimants' welfare paramount, towards long term and gradual goals. we have nothing like that, far from it, and no prospect of it.

'one size fits all' is at least fairer than 'tell us all about yourself including what you think and feel - and one of our stressed out, untrained and severely pissed- off decision-makers will determine your fate.

Below You will find a short Q & A compiled from some email correspondence with ATOS, which clarifies the position regarding the WFHRA and it’s completion.
I understand that one CAB was told at a local liaison meeting that the whole WFI was going to be scheduled for 1.5 hours, to include the WFHRA & WCA etc . That should slow things down somewhat - about 6 clients per day per officer ….
=============================================
Q
Can you please clarify one item for me with regard to the WFHRA – “the customer journey” appears to show this being posted to the client – or at least Indicating that it is intended that the customer completes the form themselves. That was the impression that I got at the meeting, but others who weren’t there are putting a different interpretation on it …….

A
the WFHRA report is completed by our Health Care Professional as a result of discussion with the customer at their Work Capability Assessment.
the WFHRA report is sent out by post to the customer following the assessment

Q
“….the WFHRA report is sent out by post to the customer following the assessment…”
At that point, I assume that there is nothing to stop the client adding bits if (upon reflection) he/she disagrees with the contents of the report ?

A
In respect of the WFHRA understand Atos healthcare involvement is complete once the report is produced by the health care professional on the day.
However, the covering letter to the WFHRA will advise the customer that they may wish to speak to their GP or practitioner who is treating them for their incapacity about the content of the WFHRA. They are told that the content of the report will be discussed at their next WFI with their PA - therefore, the customer will have the opportunity to clarify/explain points on the WFHRA with their PA at their WFI.

If the customer wants to know more about the report, or get more information, they are advised to contact JCP- the phone numbers are provided.

Dear Mike,

The information you have obtained shines a light on the apparent sanctity of the completed WFHRA. Seems fairly clear that once its completed, its finished, and although there is the opportunity for 'clarification' at the next WFI, the ATOS response is careful to avoid giving the impression that the content can be revised during the subsequent WFI process.

I suppose our clients will just have to 'get it right first time', in terms of their responses during the Limited Capability for Work/Main Phase group allocation/WFHRA processes. As I mentioned before, WFHRA generated opinions may well affect 'participation' decisions at WFIs, and one wonders how much scope there will be to put things right at subsequent appeal tribunals.

Steve

of course! i forgot that the 'fate determining' action i whinged about previously is a contracted out function, under reg. 62, thus sparing hard-pressed decision-makers! owhatagoosiam!

there are sanctions for failure to 'take part' in a WFI, and i have a few problems with (c) and (d) particularly (see reg below) - especially how the extent to which the Secretary of State, as interpreted by Acme Brown Nosers for BigGov Bikkies or whoever, considers participation necessary will be determined, or the basis on which it is decided that he was adequately assisted in the completion of the action plan.

it is entirely possible that my concerns are unnecessary, and this is not a bully's charter, hitting hardest the usual suspects of multiply vulnerable and disadvantaged, plus the obstreperous. should things go according to plan, (if there is one!) i expect there to be a fairly softly softly approach, at least until the populace is thoroughly subjugated and 'sheepled'. the development of 'legal tests' in this area threatens to be interesting, as people have already commented, and fairly exhausting and tardy in terms of social damage limitation. so, in pythoness mode, i predict an increase in discrimination arguments, and possibly another worker - aggravating mis-selling scandal by the bye.

it could of course just lead to shuffling of more onto the 'carer' list, rather like the U/E were shuffled onto the sick list in the 80's (outside of London) recession when there were no jobs... oh hush my mouth... don't mind me, i expect it's my age... the possibility of being obliged, in the misfortunate event of serious health problems before pension age, of committing to a gold-fish- caring training course to James Parnell's representative on Earth in return for my NI for the last 37 years makes me obstreporous...
if it's all a middle-class job creation scheme, i think some responsible person should have the courage to state it openly, but then i have a poor understanding of politics...: )
i draw some comfort from the first law of thermodynamics, but don't mind admitting that if i were 25 years younger the 'sarah connors' school of child rearing would have it's attractions...: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Connor_(Terminator)


Taking part in a work-focused interview
57.—(1) A claimant is regarded as having taken part in a work-focused interview if the claimant—

(a) attends for the interview at the place and at the date and time notified in accordance with regulation 56;
(b) provides information, if requested by the Secretary of State, about any or all of the matters set out in paragraph (2);
(c) participates in discussions to the extent the Secretary of State considers necessary, about any or all of the matters set out in paragraph (3);
(d) assists the Secretary of State in the completion of an action plan.

the link didn't work - i'll try it again - maybe shawn can help if it still doesn't work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Connor_(Terminator)

a thought struck me:

this quiestion
"What do you feel would help you to achieve your future plans in relation to work?"

answered by someone in a wheelchair, for example, thus:

"an employer able to see beyond the wheelchair and with a wheelchair accessible workplace"

would produce what response from the people administering this process?

Probably 'your expectations are to high, you probaly need to lower them'
'You'll be lucky if you can have a ramp into the building, you needy needy person' Or something like that.