Disability Benefit Assessments Have Doubled In Cost To £579M Per Year, Will Save £400M Over 3 Years!

[DEATH]

Disability benefit assessments have doubled in cost to £579m a year but targets are still being missed, the National Audit Office has said.

The spending watchdog found the quality of the tests was also not improving despite significant changes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35256386

Am I missing something here? We are spending £500m a year harassing disabled people to save just over £100m a year?

[Frank Hovis]

There isn't enough information given to make sense of it.

If the £500m is a figure to deal with all claimants unassessed under the new basis and then it drops to ?£50m a year for new / periodic tests then it makes financial sense if that provides an ongoing £130m per year.

Of course I have no idea if that's how it works, typical shoddy reporting of government finances (and I'm not singling out the BBC for a change, they're usually one of the better ones at this).

[durhamborn]

Iv just helped a genuine case,severe learning difficulties,got zero points from the tests with the private company for PIP and ESA.Went to appeal on both,at the hearing the judge awarded PIP for life and ESA support group.

Most cases are simply going to appeal and winning.The tests are simply a new bit of red tape added that save nothing.Crazy.They would be better making the benefits less generous on PIP instead.

[Frank Hovis]

I think that as well as the genuine cases there are people taking the mickey, and the benefits are worth having.

The OP (De'Ath) spoke about harassing disabled people as though that were the point, when the actual aim is to kick off it the people who aren't disabled. Something with which most people would agree.

As with many of the government's welfare reforms I entirely agree with the aims but the implementation is usually rubbish and the implications are not thought through; resulting often in adverse effects for people who are not the intended targets of the reform.

A prime example was the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax. Great idea, why should somebody on benefits get a free extra room that somebody who works can't afford. But it didn't cross anybody's mind that where a carer is required to stay overnight they will need a room so should be included in the household.

What the eff do all those experts in the civil servive, House of Lords do when they're "scrutinising" the legislation? Check the grammar?

[Bora Horza]

I agree we need welfare reform and some parts of the welfare system are far too generous.

However, I think many of the policies that the Conservatives have implemented have less to do with making a fairer, more affordable social security system and more to do with their ideological beliefs.

I suspect this also results in less savings, overall, because by not taking a holistic view of welfare/Government spending, some of the cuts made in welfare will have the effect of pushing costs into other areas of the Government spending.

For example, reducing council tax benefit and moving the responsibility to councils.

This just adds an extra burden of administration on councils, extra complexity in the benefit system - reducing benefit system complexity was supposed to be a Conservative objective, hence policies such as the Universal Credit.

It also means councils are chasing people for relatively small sums of money, the costs of administration/enforcement/wider societal costs must surely out weight the small reduction in spending?

That is just one example where I think policies have been ideologically driven, rather than approached in a pragmatic way.

[interestrateripoff]

So the government is spending money to save money, but is in fact losing more money than its saving?

[Frank Hovis]

Interestrateripoff - we don't know, see my earlier post

Bora Horza - now this is something different to welfare reform IMO. It is central government treating local government as the "enemy".

They see it as expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic. So as well as cutting direct government funding, down 40% over five years or of that order, they want to lump them with providing additional services out of that reduced pot (plus council tax and whatever else they can bring in).

So they chop the central benefit entirely and IIRC provide a pittance to councils to act as a relief fund for extreme cases.

They don't care about any additional admin because they're not paying for it - the council is.

[MrPin]

Surely your local doctor is qualified to say whether you are "disabled" or not. I got a two week sick note once, so up yours HR!

Central Government should foot the bill. I personally live in an area where the average age seems to be over 80. That means lots of electric chariots!

[SarahBell]

Surely your local doctor is qualified to say whether you are "disabled" or not. I got a two week sick note once, so up yours HR!

Central Government should foot the bill. I personally live in an area where the average age seems to be over 80. That means lots of electric chariots!

Sadly the git I know is fit enough to lift 200 flags in a couple of days but not fit enough for work.

I assume he doesn't mention his constant activities to his GP when he's in there getting his tramodol.