h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The government is considering banning mobile phones that look like car key fobs in case prisoners smuggle them into prisons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23782136

Alternatively, couldn't they just take the car keys off prisoners?

'The reality is, people are assessed by a Doctor who understands disability issues in a way that few GPs can in depth, understands the benefits available in a way that few GPs can and has specific knowledge of the facilities and resources available in each geographical area.' swl

Not according to Dr Wood they are not

'His decision to blow the whistle on practices within Atos made headlines in May, because he was the first Atos-employed doctor to put his career on the line and articulate concerns about a system that has been criticised by charities and claimants for years. Wood gave strong evidence to the BBC to suggest that the methods used to assess whether individuals are eligible for the new incapacity benefit – employment and support allowance (ESA) – were "unfair" and "skewed against the claimant".

Last week, the government revealed that the quality of reports written by Atos assessors had fallen to "unacceptably poor" levels. Given the noise created by his act of whistleblowing, Wood thinks he can take a sliver of credit for the government's subsequent decision to retrain those Atos staff delivering the controversial fitness-for-work test and to start appointing new companies to take on the work, alongside Atos.'

oops forgot the link

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/31/atos-fitness-work-test-greg-wood

That's interesting (and worrying) but again, why is it contrary to my experience via friends and relatives in three different health board areas? I've no desire to see people denied help they need, I know at first hand how important it is, but all I've seen is positive results under the new system.

Because a tiny sample group can lead to an unrepresentative result. That's statistics ABCs.

Incredible coincidence though, no?

Incredibly small sample group, I would have said.

I'm not doubting your experiences for a moment, but if there was a study published with a sample group of fourteen people in the country, I'm sure we'd all agree that the results are not necessarily a reliable indicator of anything.

This is one of the first things you learn about statistics...

swl the system isn't failing everyone, it worked for your relatives and that is good

I can think of reasons why you may have had a different experience, the claims may have been more straight forward, claimants better supported or more able to deal with the processes.

Other changes in the system may not be also affecting them, bedroom tax, changes in other benefits, council tax or the changes of conditions of claiming benefits such as attending the work programme

The work programme has positive stories but also appalling failures.

My point really is that this isn't just an issue that is effecting a tiny insignificant but very vocal minority as you said.

I get what you're saying with sample size and all, but it's not just relatives - it's their clients too, another couple of dozen or so. I suspect that, as has been mentioned, these are mainly clear cut cases where the results of assessments aren't in doubt so it's a self-selecting group demonstrating that for those most in need the system seems to work.

I also get it that there will be bad employees, incompetent managers making wrong decisions and because the consequences of these decisions are so grave, they should rightly be held up to regular scrutiny. But I feel that any system brought in to more accurately assess claimants who have undoubtedly benefited in the past from the political decision to "park" long term unemployed on sickness benefits is going to be attacked. It's right that charities stand up for those that have been mistreated but I can't help thinking that "Disabled person failed by ATOS assessment" makes a far better story in some quarters than "Disabled person benefits from ATOS assessment".

Those who have been badly treated are far more likely to jump up and down about it than those who received an efficient, fair service - no?

But it does raise the question of at what point a service becomes unfit for purpose. Errors are made in every organisation, but at what point do you intervene and give it a very close reappraisal? For example, if you screw up 40% of cases it would still mean you get it right most of the time, but it would be a pretty abysmal record.

Can't find figures, but doesn't that 40% refer to the number of successful appeals not the number of rejected claims?

Oh I wasn't quoting figures there. I just plucked that out of the air, speaking hypothetically.

I happened to be reading factcheck

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/ATOS_ESA_assessments_overturned-3135 where I think the 40% came from swl

it is a bit out of date and the number of appeals are rocketing.

Interestingly, in 2004 64% of disability claims were initially rejected but I can't find the figures for how many were successfully appealed.

Under ATOS, 40% of appeals are successful but I can't find how many are initially rejected.

Thanks for that Peanut. 8-10% of appeals being successful isn't that high, especially as an appeal usually entails social workers or advocates helping the applicant explain their case better. And I'm not surprised the number of appeals are increasing given the publicity.

hmmm, well I am

From what I can gather the number of appeals are rocketing, the DWP have said that written reports by Atos has fallen to unacceptable levels.

In Factcheck they also said they didn't have any figures of those assessments that had over turned on 'reassessment' rather than going to tribunal.

Also while I agree with you that people shouldn't just be parked on the sick I don't think their is the support in place, neither the jobs out there to get people 'back into work'

While perhaps the numbers of people being so called 'parked on the long term sick' has been lowered somewhat how much of this is being masked with people doing the ESA/JSA flip and back? Which makes you not long term sick or long term unemployed statistically

That 70% success rate by the Scottish Citizins advice would be interesting to follow up, is there a really significant difference between people getting help with representation like this than those going it alone.

In terms of experiences swl I am picking up that ATOS fare better and that the process for the assessments of DLA are more sound than the ones for ESA

Well DLA is established and has been refined by legal challenges and experience. ESA is new and not been through the cycle so to speak.

I agree about the dubious benefits of flipping from DLA to JSA but the difference would be with DLA you didn't have to sign on and nobody was really monitoring it. JSA involves a bit of job-hunting, or at least going through the motions.

If only 8-10% of appeals are successful, it would appear that the criteria (whether you would consider them just and appropriate or not) are being applied correctly. Unless of course, the appeal process itself is badly flawed.

But there is some problem with the perception of reviews isn't there. There's nothing wrong with a review in itself. As has been said, people should not be 'parked' on benefits.

Only yesterday, a colleague of mine, a Community Psychiatric Nurse with years of experience, went off on one because a service user of his was being reviewed. The SU is one of the illest men that I have ever met. Has been for years and frankly, short of a miracle, I don't see much prospect of recovery.

If his review removes benefit, there is clearly a problem. If it is left alone, then that's fine. Mental health though, and proving that there is a properly debilitating condition, is something of a minefield.

PP.

Why should England tremble ?
http://www.express.co.uk/