Post by nickd on Jan 26, 2011 23:48:10 GMT 1
" 75% ON SICK ARE SKIVING" - these are the headlines found blazing across the headlines of today's (26th Jan) Daily Express, this is the kind of stuff people all over the Country have read today.
The headlines are followed by the words " Benefit cheats are taking us to the cleaners"
Here's their on-line version in all its glory:
www.express.co.uk/posts/view/225311/75-on-sick-are-skiving
Read the comments too, there's a mixture of comments, both for and against.
In my view, headlines like this are just plainly irresponsible, this is dangerous journalism, it's creating a whole new breed of hatred towards the benefit claimant, particularly those who claim on the grounds of incapacity and disability.
It's regrettable that many who read these articles believe all they say. I write as an experienced welfare benefit specialist, and from my experience of helping many many people over the years this kind of blanket attention grabbing headline is not at all representative of those I see, a view shared by many of my colleagues. Our own set of statistics differs greatly from those we have helped - figures which we have given to our constituent MP's.
The accuracy of this headline is highly questionable. I refer to the latest set of statistics from the DWP - who provide the real figures; these being:
For all new Employment & Support Allowance Claims from 27th October 2008 to 31st May 2010, the result of the initial Work Capability Assessment review is as follows:
• Support Group - 6%
• Work Related Activity Group -16%
• Fit for Work - 39%
• Claim closed before assessment complete - 36%
• Assessment still in progress - 3%
This information is bang up to date and is sourced from the DWP - take a look for the full report by using the following link:
statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_25012011.pdf
Now, this won't mean a great to those who don't understand the system - but to those that do, it will make some sense.
There are major flaws in the claims made by the Daily Express when compared against this data.
The Guardian has referred to a correction column in the way the figures were reported. See the following link:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp
The flaws in the Daily Express are these:
(1) The data only relates to the much tougher Employment & Support Allowance introduced as part of the 2007 Welfare Reform Act, they do not relate to the previous 'Incapacity Benefit' (as reported in the Daily Express) - a benefit introduced in 1995. Employment & Support Allowance was only introduced as a claimable benefit in October 2008. The whole purpose of the allowance is to support people who have a limitation back into the workplace. The article is therefore irrelevant to what it says of those on Incapacity Benefit.
(2) The Daily Express article clearly relates the data to Incapacity Benefit and its findings on the new Work Capability Assessment - the two are incompatible - the Work Capability Assessment has no connection whatsoever with Incapacity benefit.
(3) The article implies, on the basis of no logical argument, that of the claimants who ceased claiming after being examined by the state's independent healthcare professionals - all are cheats. What it doesn't mention is how the initial period of claim is known as the 'assessment phase'. It is meant to be no longer than 13 weeks. The problem is that so many appeals are being made - the waiting lists have become far longer. What the article doesn't say is how sick people may just have got better - not beyond the realms of possibility - given that people are often only ill for a few weeks or say three months. Thus there is always going to be a natural reduction rate- especially when people are waiting for much longer than 13 weeks when in the assessment phase. There is also no mention of how many of the assumed 'cheat' group give up after the medical to - (a) claim an alternative benefit such as Income Support related to Disability Living Allowance or (b) transfer to Pension Credit when aged between 60 and 65. There are also - amongst this group - those who simply lose faith in the whole process and rely on savings to support themselves or live on their partner's income, this can be linked to all manner of claim situations which may exist - involving the claimant being on either contribution or income based Employment & Support Allowance. It is inherently dangerous to assume that everyone who gives up - does so for some reason associated with their claim being dubious, there is simply no evidence to support this allegation.
(3) Nor does the article say how many of the claimants who have their appeals turned down by tribunals - end up back on the Employment and Support Allowance shortly afterwards. Often because the Jobcentre tells them they are not fit for work - there is a cycle of the same claimants. I see this in a fair number of cases, ironically second time around - they end up being put in the higher support group - a matter of weeks after being turned down by an appeal tribunal.
(4) No mention is made of recognised failings in the current Work Capability Assessment - a recent review suggests the original version is wrong - legislative change has been recommended to ensure the assessment process works properly. This follows the Harrington review.
Read the review here:
www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf
(5) The article fails to seek the views of qualified doctors who know their patients better than anyone, they too have been trained in the new assessment connected with identifying disabled claimants who can undertake some work - they are familiar with the new 'fit note' regime - which replaced the old sick notes. It seems perverse to disregard the word of a highly trained doctor when it comes to deciding at what level their patient is capable - or in some cases not - of some form of work. Especially, at a time when GP's are being told they are 'best placed' to make the management decisions undertaken by the Primary Care Trusts. The word of the GP seems to stand for something on the one hand, but not on the other - why do the Daily Express fail to seek the views of GP's and see what they have to say?
(6) The number of claimants found capable of work under the 'tougher' rules is as the DWP figures say -39% - it is even less under the Incapacity benefit rules . The right thing to do is get the assessment right first and then quote statistics. The proper figures can't be ascertained until such times as the assessment is corrected.
(7) The purpose of the new allowance was to identify those with limitation. Much of the limitation can be related to a combination of physical and mental health problems - there were many reports which concluded (in the run up to the 2007 Welfare Reform Act) these were the real barriers to work - and yet no mention is made of any of them- it just seems more 'acceptable' to label all these claimants as 'cheats'.
(8) There is little reference in the figures used by the Daily Express over the number of claimants appealing against Employment & Support Allowance appeals. There are figures in the DWP report, but no mention of these appear on the paper's front page. Estimates vary, but of those who appeal - 40% are estimated to be successful, this shows a high degree of failure in the adjudication process. It should not be assumed that, by default, 60% are unsuccessful - this can only be worked out with proper statistics showing how many appeals were adjourned for directions, further evidence & so forth. Some say - the ME society for instance - that the appeal success rate is nearer 60% when the claimant is represented.
This was (IMHO) an appalling peace of journalism, it's tarring everyone with the same brush. Those who are tarred are the least able to speak up on their behalf. One also has to wonder why moves are being made to remove all forms of support and help to those who need it to contest unjust decisions, this isn't justice - it's trial & retribution by a media who has little grasp of the real facts.
People need to come forward and help those campaigning on their behalf fight this kind of condemnation - there are far better ways of judging how disabled people are than by reading newspaper headlines - these are people who need representation and advocacy - let them give their side of the story before we label them cheat and scrounger.
The headlines are followed by the words " Benefit cheats are taking us to the cleaners"
Here's their on-line version in all its glory:
www.express.co.uk/posts/view/225311/75-on-sick-are-skiving
Read the comments too, there's a mixture of comments, both for and against.
In my view, headlines like this are just plainly irresponsible, this is dangerous journalism, it's creating a whole new breed of hatred towards the benefit claimant, particularly those who claim on the grounds of incapacity and disability.
It's regrettable that many who read these articles believe all they say. I write as an experienced welfare benefit specialist, and from my experience of helping many many people over the years this kind of blanket attention grabbing headline is not at all representative of those I see, a view shared by many of my colleagues. Our own set of statistics differs greatly from those we have helped - figures which we have given to our constituent MP's.
The accuracy of this headline is highly questionable. I refer to the latest set of statistics from the DWP - who provide the real figures; these being:
For all new Employment & Support Allowance Claims from 27th October 2008 to 31st May 2010, the result of the initial Work Capability Assessment review is as follows:
• Support Group - 6%
• Work Related Activity Group -16%
• Fit for Work - 39%
• Claim closed before assessment complete - 36%
• Assessment still in progress - 3%
This information is bang up to date and is sourced from the DWP - take a look for the full report by using the following link:
statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_25012011.pdf
Now, this won't mean a great to those who don't understand the system - but to those that do, it will make some sense.
There are major flaws in the claims made by the Daily Express when compared against this data.
The Guardian has referred to a correction column in the way the figures were reported. See the following link:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/incapacity-benefit-claimants-work-dwp
The flaws in the Daily Express are these:
(1) The data only relates to the much tougher Employment & Support Allowance introduced as part of the 2007 Welfare Reform Act, they do not relate to the previous 'Incapacity Benefit' (as reported in the Daily Express) - a benefit introduced in 1995. Employment & Support Allowance was only introduced as a claimable benefit in October 2008. The whole purpose of the allowance is to support people who have a limitation back into the workplace. The article is therefore irrelevant to what it says of those on Incapacity Benefit.
(2) The Daily Express article clearly relates the data to Incapacity Benefit and its findings on the new Work Capability Assessment - the two are incompatible - the Work Capability Assessment has no connection whatsoever with Incapacity benefit.
(3) The article implies, on the basis of no logical argument, that of the claimants who ceased claiming after being examined by the state's independent healthcare professionals - all are cheats. What it doesn't mention is how the initial period of claim is known as the 'assessment phase'. It is meant to be no longer than 13 weeks. The problem is that so many appeals are being made - the waiting lists have become far longer. What the article doesn't say is how sick people may just have got better - not beyond the realms of possibility - given that people are often only ill for a few weeks or say three months. Thus there is always going to be a natural reduction rate- especially when people are waiting for much longer than 13 weeks when in the assessment phase. There is also no mention of how many of the assumed 'cheat' group give up after the medical to - (a) claim an alternative benefit such as Income Support related to Disability Living Allowance or (b) transfer to Pension Credit when aged between 60 and 65. There are also - amongst this group - those who simply lose faith in the whole process and rely on savings to support themselves or live on their partner's income, this can be linked to all manner of claim situations which may exist - involving the claimant being on either contribution or income based Employment & Support Allowance. It is inherently dangerous to assume that everyone who gives up - does so for some reason associated with their claim being dubious, there is simply no evidence to support this allegation.
(3) Nor does the article say how many of the claimants who have their appeals turned down by tribunals - end up back on the Employment and Support Allowance shortly afterwards. Often because the Jobcentre tells them they are not fit for work - there is a cycle of the same claimants. I see this in a fair number of cases, ironically second time around - they end up being put in the higher support group - a matter of weeks after being turned down by an appeal tribunal.
(4) No mention is made of recognised failings in the current Work Capability Assessment - a recent review suggests the original version is wrong - legislative change has been recommended to ensure the assessment process works properly. This follows the Harrington review.
Read the review here:
www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf
(5) The article fails to seek the views of qualified doctors who know their patients better than anyone, they too have been trained in the new assessment connected with identifying disabled claimants who can undertake some work - they are familiar with the new 'fit note' regime - which replaced the old sick notes. It seems perverse to disregard the word of a highly trained doctor when it comes to deciding at what level their patient is capable - or in some cases not - of some form of work. Especially, at a time when GP's are being told they are 'best placed' to make the management decisions undertaken by the Primary Care Trusts. The word of the GP seems to stand for something on the one hand, but not on the other - why do the Daily Express fail to seek the views of GP's and see what they have to say?
(6) The number of claimants found capable of work under the 'tougher' rules is as the DWP figures say -39% - it is even less under the Incapacity benefit rules . The right thing to do is get the assessment right first and then quote statistics. The proper figures can't be ascertained until such times as the assessment is corrected.
(7) The purpose of the new allowance was to identify those with limitation. Much of the limitation can be related to a combination of physical and mental health problems - there were many reports which concluded (in the run up to the 2007 Welfare Reform Act) these were the real barriers to work - and yet no mention is made of any of them- it just seems more 'acceptable' to label all these claimants as 'cheats'.
(8) There is little reference in the figures used by the Daily Express over the number of claimants appealing against Employment & Support Allowance appeals. There are figures in the DWP report, but no mention of these appear on the paper's front page. Estimates vary, but of those who appeal - 40% are estimated to be successful, this shows a high degree of failure in the adjudication process. It should not be assumed that, by default, 60% are unsuccessful - this can only be worked out with proper statistics showing how many appeals were adjourned for directions, further evidence & so forth. Some say - the ME society for instance - that the appeal success rate is nearer 60% when the claimant is represented.
This was (IMHO) an appalling peace of journalism, it's tarring everyone with the same brush. Those who are tarred are the least able to speak up on their behalf. One also has to wonder why moves are being made to remove all forms of support and help to those who need it to contest unjust decisions, this isn't justice - it's trial & retribution by a media who has little grasp of the real facts.
People need to come forward and help those campaigning on their behalf fight this kind of condemnation - there are far better ways of judging how disabled people are than by reading newspaper headlines - these are people who need representation and advocacy - let them give their side of the story before we label them cheat and scrounger.
