|
 |
|
- Removing automatic entitlement for certain conditions and indefinite awards both increases costs – of examinations with clear outcomes – and misery – in dragging long-term disabled and seriously ill people through repeated examination processes and creates yet more psychological, physical and financial uncertainty for those already struggling with all of these. By all means verify conditions, on a fixed term basis, using GP’s, consultants and claimant statements and a ‘Change in status’ document but some conditions/illnesses are very clearly permanent and irreversible. To deny this is a nonsense.
- Taking account of aids and adaptations in assessment of conditions ignores the reality that DLA provides the finance to help pay for such aids and adaptations. Where is the logic in assessing ability with aids then removing the means of financing such aids? Again, nonsense!
- The government suggests DLA acts as a barrier to work, citing evidence that those receiving it have higher levels of unemployment and lower work expectations especially if on higher rates. Does the government understand that those on higher rates need carers to help with getting up, dressing, washing, toileting, feeding, drinking etc? That they cannot use mainstream transport, enter many buildings or inter-act with mainstream society easily? Far from being a barrier to work, DLA is the only buffer from abject poverty that many who cannot work receive. Does the government not recognize that barriers to work for such people are not due to DLA but those arising from poor health and external barriers and that the receipt of DLA/unemployment relationship is not causal in nature?
- Tightening up of qualification criteria and reducing the number of rates is simply a mechanism of exclusion that may be effected as easily under the DLA umbrella as the PIP one – again, why bother with the expense of rebranding to exclude claimants? Rebranding obsfucates the exclusion process rather than simplifying it. Does the government plan to save the 20% that it states it will by excluding current claimants?
- Introducing a third party private contractor to undertake examinations adds an unnecessary layer of additional cost to the review process. Is there a reason why testament from GP’s and consultants and other therapists is inadequate or inferior to an external but publicly funded private contractor?
- There are already processes to signpost those with disabilities and illnesses to other support. How will an external third party be more expert than existing NHS and public services in improving this?
- Why are GP’S and NHS consultants not considered adequately expert as ‘independent healthcare professionals’? Isn’t this precisely their role? Why pay yet another person to do this?
- The inference that monies will be focused on those in greatest need is nefarious. By definition, DLA/PIP is only given to those with significant impairment, incurring additional costs because of their disability. Is the government suggesting some people’s needs are of less importance and they will not be supported? I find it beyond belief that we may refuse to give support to those incurring such costs because they are not suffering enough … and in whose judgement, by what criteria?
In summary, I simply do not believe that this reform proposal improves standards of living for those of us with disabilities; in fact, I think it is detrimental to us. Are there not thousands, receiving DLA, who think the same and haven't signed yet? There is still time to sign the petition - the consultation period ends on 14th February 2011. If there is no last minute surge to sign up, shouldn't all, who currently receve DLA, be asking themselves, and each other, why not?
|
|
