Do you want to discuss boring politics? (19 Viewers)

fernandopartridge said:

My opinion on it is that it is just too large, there will be so many points at which spend can happen that it becomes a huge industry to try and control it. I mean they can obviously do a far better job than they do currently but it's probably been so dysfunctional for so long the cultural change needed is huge.

Click to expand...

Nick said:

It would be telling if people suddenly wanted a diagnosis so they could get benefits... Would think they would have got a diagnosis for treatment?

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

Telling in what way? PIP is not diagnosis based, its based on need and meeting the criteria.

You or I could call the doctor today, have a 5 minute appointment and walk out with medication for stress, anxiety or depression without a formal diagnosis or ongoing treatment plan. The bar for that is way lower than it is for PIP.

The system at present is that if you don't supply sufficient acceptable supporting evidence with your application you have an hour long assessment. Under the present system around half of applications are refused.

The surge in the number of people claiming PIP for mental health conditions is not out of line with other mental health statistics. There seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads and questioning why this has shot up when we've had a couple of decades of huge cuts to mental health services and a generation reaching working age that lived through a pandemic & lockdowns.

We've been here before. Reeves attempted a similar move and there was uproar as well as questions around the potential for multiple legal challenges before the inevitable u-turn. Even the right wing CSJ when proposing changes conceded that if you were removing PIP payments for mental health conditions you needed huge increases in capacity for mental health services.

I just don't think it’s workable. Nothing more than a soundbite to try and convince people there's huge numbers of people sat at home, perfectly healthy, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense.

Click to expand...

SBAndy said:

Story of most things (and most political stances) to be honest. You’ve got half of the people pointing at the purported fraud and making the case that we stop paying, meaning people who need it miss out. Meanwhile, the other half of people are pointing at the same purported fraud and making the case that we improve the general ‘infrastructure’ which comes at additional cost to the country.

Click to expand...

SBAndy said:

Story of most things (and most political stances) to be honest. You’ve got half of the people pointing at the purported fraud and making the case that we stop paying, meaning people who need it miss out. Meanwhile, the other half of people are pointing at the same purported fraud and making the case that we improve the general ‘infrastructure’ which comes at additional cost to the country.

Click to expand...

Grendel said:

I know a fair few who get PIP - it’s should be means tested and get far greater scrutiny than it does

Click to expand...

SBAndy said:

And I know no one who gets PIP so I can’t really have a reasoned opinion on it.

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

The figures for PIP fraud are quoted as being so low it is classed at zero.

Dig a bit deeper and you find a figure of 0.4% for overpayments. 0.1% of that is DWP errors the vast majority of the rest is down to claimants not reporting a change in circumstances before their review date.

Fraud, overpayment and administration errors total a cost of £90m. How much are we proposing to spend to change the system to lower that figure?

By comparison state pension overpayment is £170m, pension credit £520m, housing benefit £980m and universal credit £6,460m.

Not sure PIP is where we need to be concentrating efforts.

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

Telling in what way? PIP is not diagnosis based, its based on need and meeting the criteria.

You or I could call the doctor today, have a 5 minute appointment and walk out with medication for stress, anxiety or depression without a formal diagnosis or ongoing treatment plan. The bar for that is way lower than it is for PIP.

The system at present is that if you don't supply sufficient acceptable supporting evidence with your application you have an hour long assessment. Under the present system around half of applications are refused.

The surge in the number of people claiming PIP for mental health conditions is not out of line with other mental health statistics. There seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads and questioning why this has shot up when we've had a couple of decades of huge cuts to mental health services and a generation reaching working age that lived through a pandemic & lockdowns.

We've been here before. Reeves attempted a similar move and there was uproar as well as questions around the potential for multiple legal challenges before the inevitable u-turn. Even the right wing CSJ when proposing changes conceded that if you were removing PIP payments for mental health conditions you needed huge increases in capacity for mental health services.

I just don't think its workable. Nothing more than a soundbite to try and convince people there's huge numbers of people sat at home, perfectly healthy, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense.

Click to expand...

Nick said:

It's telling because if somebody needs PIP for a mental health issue they are saying it is impacting their life. If it is impacting their life, why haven't they tried to get a diagnosis / proper treatment for it? (or at least on the waiting list).

If there aren't many on PIP without diagnosis like you suggest then there won't be a surge if the rules were to change.

Every time it's mentioned you seem to think it isn't being abused. I could probably claim over £100 a week if I laid it on thick, I work full time and don't think I need it so haven't tried. That is with a diagnosis.

Click to expand...

Grendel said:

the whole thing should be scrapped

Click to expand...