A proposal for an alternative to the current W.C.A.

 

The forum will be moving soon to www.dwpexamination.org

What is Plan “B”

A proposal for an alternative to the present W.C.A.

With ATOS Healthcare on the brink of bankruptcy and failing to meet the demands of their contract with the DWP it is essential we have a plan “B” which we can put forward for consideration upon their demise. I have written and spoken about such a plan many times and consider it to be of the utmost importance that the new test is designed by the people it is likely to affect most, the sick and disabled.

In the past the sickness benefits system has been abused, we are all agreed on that point. This is endemic in any form of Government benefit just look at the M.P.’s expenses scandal as a prime example of how easy it is to take more than you give. In designing a new test one must be as careful as is reasonably practicable to prevent fraud and in doing so being equally cautious in not excluding people who are legally entitled to benefits in the process.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind it is quite obvious a “test” of sickness / disability is necessary. The present biased system is grossly unfair and there are many cases of a Physiotherapists opinions on a persons functional ability being the preferred source of evidence by Jobcentreplus Decision Makers, when other evidence from eminent physicians is also available.

The problems associated with ATOS gel around the following facts.

They are a private sector company.

They employ, train and accredit their own Healthcare Professionals.

The I.T. basedLiMAsystem in not fit for purpose

HCP’s often lacked empathy with their clients.

Physically and mentally ill people were treated as “customers” rather than patients.

ATOS Healthcare could not make up their mind whether the assessment was a “medical” or a “functional assessment”.

The location and layout of medical examination centres are not “disabled” friendly, often in hard to reach places in City centres far away from parking and public service stops.

These facts and many other anomalies led to poor, rushed, assessments being made which in turn resulted in poor reports being produced. When faced with the report from the ATOS HCP, Jobcentreplus Decision Makers felt they were out of their depth in making decisions on the clients entitlement to benefits and simply “rubber stamped” the ATOS H.C.P.’s decision agreeing exactly on points awarded. This in turn led to countless “reconsideration” requests during which the “customer” got access to the H.C.P.’s report upon which the JC+ D.M. based their decision. In  every case the “customer” felt the report was about someone else and bore little or no resemblance to what had actually been said or occurred at the “medical”.

Consequently decisions were upheld by JC+ D.M.’s who shunned their responsibility and passed the file to the Tribunals Service. This led to enormous back ups in the Tribunals Service and the time to have a case heard extended up to 12 to 14 months in many cases. To combat the backlog and to “massage” the figures JC+ D.M.’s and ATOS H.C.P.’s were allowed to “review” files held by the Tribunals Service. This mysterious turn of events led to many claimants receiving letters saying their case had been “reviewed” and a new decision made in their favour, thus negating the need to attend a tribunal. Whilst this did shorten the queue slightly, it did little for the reputation of ATOS, the D.W.P. and the Tribunal Service.Whilst this was going on, the Government commissioned the “Harrington report” which was allegedly tasked with “looking” at the Work Capability Assessment and identifying areas where improvements could be made. Professor Harrington looked at the present system, found it to be seriously flawed and made several recommendations.

To date very few “recommendations” have been implemented and both ATOS and the Government admit the proposed adjustments are taking longer and proving more difficult to implement than first thought. Prof Harrington admitted his recommendations have not been implemented and would take time to come through the existing system, even when asked what would happen to those who had their benefits suspended because these recommendations were not implemented in time. 

Having summed up the available evidence I now come to my original point. What is the alternative? Thousands of us are complaining about the treatment we have received from ATOS and about the apparent lack of empathy they have with their clients. We all agree there is something fundamentally wrong with an assessment system which relies upon a private company for delivery to decide who is and isn’t fit for work, when their main function as a private sector company is to make profit!

 I offer the following for your consideration.

 Plan “B”

Any proposed replacement scheme must be delivered by a not for profit organisation like the NHS.

Any assessment must be fair and equitable. It must provide an opinion upon the effect sickness/disability has upon an individual’s ability to perform work related tasks within their own skill set. (Not, as at present “any” kind of work the HCP can imagine)

The client must be referred to as the Patient rather than words like “client, claimant or customer”.

A suitable and easy to understand questionnaire should be designed and an accompanying set of descriptors to clarify each question made available to the patient prior to a decision being made regarding a medical assessment taking place.

Time limited appointments should be made to avoid extended waiting times. Medicals should have a specific duration where possible and should be based upon the information available in the medical questionnaire.

All “medicals” should be carried out by fully qualified medical personnel with experience of general practice and who are employed by the N.H.S.

Evidence from the patients G.P. or other medical professional should be the basis of the examination and used to “filter” terminal cases at the earliest possible point, whilst allowing the processes to inform those who are required to attend, to do so.

All medical centres should have safe access and egress for disabled people and have reception, waiting rooms and examination rooms on the ground floor. All areas should be well lit, have windows, be well ventilated and have comfortable seating. Refreshments and suitable reading material should be present and available rather than the present poorly seated, with 4 bare walls, cramped and dimly lit conditions claimants have to endure at present.

The test must be able to recognise short, medium or long term effects and the length of these periods be clearly defined. This would allow the Doctor to make a recommendation on when the patient is likely to recover or not whichever the case may be. It would also allow for pre planned follow up examinations to assess progress, either way.

The Doctor should have the full facilities to further examine the patient available to him including x-ray, MRI scanners, Specialists in physical and mental health conditions etc to ensure a fair test is delivered. Doctors should be able to rearrange an examination after further tests should this be necessary, however, being employed by the NHS access to patients records would be an essential part of the process.

Jobcentreplus Decision Makers should remain involved with the process however, appropriate training should be given to ensure fair and equitable processes. This should include the automatic search for further evidence from medical professionals connected to the claimant by the DM.

It is essential that all evidence is considered carefully in the decision making process and that the claimant is informed of the decision quickly and in sufficient time to react, rather than finding out they have failed their medical on the day their benefits should have been paid to them.

Jobcentreplus should ensure reconsiderations are dealt with quickly and within a reasonable time i.e. 2 weeks. The present system can lead to increasing debt and stress to the claimant who in some cases may become homeless.

Jobcentreplus need to take a more sympathetic approach to claimants and wherever possible assist rather than hinder progress.

That is my input folks, if you feel I have missed anything please say so I promise I will not be offended. Please read through this document carefully and comment, if you have any ideas you would like to add, things I have written you would like to change please feel free to do so. My only concern is we are prepared if the question “What would you do”? is asked.