Medics say benefit assessments too rushed

Medics say benefit assessments too rushed

Medical personnel assessing benefit claimants’ capability to work, on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, are not given enough time to assess complex cases such as those involving multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.



That is the message in evidence to Professor Malcolm Harrington’s review of the Work Capability Assessment submitted by Prospect.

The union represents medical advisers and healthcare professionals employed by Atos Healthcare, the company tasked with undertaking the assessments.

Prospect is also calling for measures to allow exemption from examination for people with severe disabilities.

The report uses the example of a young male paraplegic who, having been discharged from a spinal unit able to undertake basic self-care, such as self-propulsion in a wheelchair, would still be summoned for examination, despite easily scoring sufficient points for his employment and support allowance to continue, because he is not in the support group.

(Individuals with limited capability for work-related activity are placed in the support group of claimants and do not have to undertake work-related activities.)

On behalf of 135 members in Atos Healthcare, Prospect National Secretary Geraldine O”Connell said: “Our members take a lot of flak as people mistakenly believe they have the ability to determine whether or not claimants receive benefit. But that is determined by criteria set through government policy.

“Where their expertise is invaluable is in identifying where those criteria are falling short and failing the people most in need of support. In addition, as frontline personnel, they know more than most that each case is about an individual and their needs, not just a checklist exercise to be undertaken in a standard set time.

“Yet the 10 or more claimants they are expected to see in a day is wholly unrealistic. And there is little flexibility to increase the time for more complex cases such as stroke victims with combined physical and cognitive sequelae or claimants with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease.”

The union is also calling for the descriptors used to define mental health and upper limb disorders to be overhauled, to provide greater clarity as to where the thresholds that determine eligibility for benefits lie, and for the opinion of medical personnel to be sought in any appeal adjudication.

At present, while each appeal tribunal panel contains a member of a medical profession, they are only allowed to voice an opinion if invited to do so by the chairperson.