PPlog

Appeal for Users' ATOS Stories

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:00:00 +0000

Mental Health Resistance Network: Judicial Review

Members of the Mental Health Resistance Network (MHRN) have been working with a solicitor towards making a claim for a Judicial Review of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) which is the assessment used to determine whether we will be granted Employment Support Allowance or sent back to work (if there is any work to be found!). MHRN are just focussing on people who claim on mental health grounds.
MHRN are now at a critical stage in this process as they are very close to being able to make the claim for Judicial Review. However, before theycan do this, it would help if they could find stories that will show the court what sort of problems the WCA causes. So they are looking for people who have been through the process and would be able to tell us about their experience. If people wish, MHRN can present their cases anonymously when they use their evidence. Although it would be very good if people were prepared for MHRN to give their names to the DWP so that the DWP could check their stories, it is not essential.

There are two types of experience that we are particularly interested in (in the solicitor's words):

(i) Cases where a person claims ESA without producing any medical evidence and is refused benefit, but then wins on appeal when medical evidence is obtained.

(ii) Cases where a person claims ESA without producing any medical evidence, is refused benefit, does not appeal (perhaps because they can't face it), and then bad things happen (for example they go into work and become ill, or have a problem, or can't get work, or whatever). Ideally, the case is recognised down the line as a problem because a CAB or law centre makes a new application with medical evidence and benefit is awarded.

In other words:

1) you have you claimed and been turned down for ESA but were successful on appeal when you produced additional medical evidence
or
2) were you turned down for ESA and did not appeal but reapplied with medical evidence, and were successful.

You can send your stories to: mentalhealthresistancenetwork@gmail.com

Or you can write to the solicitor whose address is below.

MHRN need these stories urgently so if you can help, please contact us as quickly as possible.

Ravi Low-Beer - Solicitor
Public Law Project
150 Caledonian Road
London N1 9RD

Tel: 0845 543 5944
Fax: 0845 345 9254

Transition of LINks to HealthWatch.

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:40:00 +0000

This is a report on a meeting between NALM (National Association of LINks Members) and government representatives. Attribution is at the foot of the report.

Meeting with Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Health

December 14th 2011

Attendance

-Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health
-Baroness Northover, Government Whip in the Lords and Spokesperson on Health
-John Wilderspin (National Director, Health and Wellbeing Board Implementation)
-Kasey Chan (Implementation Lead for Public and Patient Engagement - HealthWatch policy)
-Katy Knight (Earl Howe's office)
-Ruth Marsden (Vice Chair NALM),
-Malcolm Alexander (Chair NALM)

Healthwatch Pathfinders

We discussed the need to ensure that the HW resources, (£60m), which will be made available by the Department of Health, are used specifically and effectively to develop LINks into Healthwatch and to create more powerful and influential bodies to represent the public in the NHS and social care. We stressed that currently the money intended for HW pathfinder development, but diverted' for generic support work for LHW, is not being used in a way that is transparent and accountable. We said that at very least transparency was needed.

We expressed our concern that there was much disillusionment amongst LINks members at the moment and that many could not see how their LINk would transform into Healthwatch. We asked Earl Howe to reconsider the case for individual funding of HW Pathfinders as a way of providing models for successful transition. We said that expectations created by promises of the independent patients' champion should be met, both for the credibility of Healthwatch itself and of the Department of Health.

Earl Howe said that both carrying forward the functions of LINks to Healthwatch and enabling volunteers to move forward was essential. A further announcement will be made in the New Year about the funding of Healthwatch Pathfinders.

Transition from LINks to Healthwatchdevelopment path for LINk members

We discussed the means by which LINk members will move forward into HW. We proposed a readiness' package' that included training, support and advice that would enable LINk members to carry forward their leading role and activities into the HW system. We said that a real platform' was essential to carry forward from LINks to LHW those LINks' members who are individual volunteers.

Earl Howe said he understood that expecting LINks to become a body corporate in order to be in the running to successfully bid to become LHW was a tall order, but that a collaborative approach between LINks, local authorities and other parties would be useful to support the transition. We also agreed that a map' was needed for LINks members, describing the way forward and that it was important to integrate the experience of LINks' members into the Healthwatch systems.

We offered examples of the work carried out by Elizabeth Manero when CHCs closed and the developing work in London with the SHA, JIP and LINks.

Earl Howe agreed that type of collaborative approach between LINks, local authorities and other parties would be useful to support the transition. We also agreed that a map' was needed for LINks members, describing the way forward and that it was important to integrate the experience of LINks' members into the HW systems.

Note: we need to look closely into how this can be done most effectively and what the outcomes might be.

Ringfencing of LHW funds

We emphasized the importance of LHW being fully funded at the level designated by the DH. We expressed our concern that the designated £60m would be dissipated into other activities and services if it was not ring-fenced.

Earl Howe, said that LAs would be encouraged to spend the designated money for the purpose intended, but that PPI cannot be immune from the financial cuts being faced in the DH and in the NHS. He said that LAs are enthusiastic about HWBBs and about the inclusion of the public's voice in that work through LHW. He added that engaging the public is of great importance and it was essential to get a breadth of views about local services. He said it is important to support and include people less able to articulate their views. In addition it is important to include local bodies other than Healthwatch.

Earl Howe was willing to explore NALM's concerns (about funding allocated for LINk by the DH) and agreed to look at ways of strengthening that message to LAs.

Independence of LHW
We expressed our concern that the independence and capacity of LHW would be undermined if they were beholden to LAs for their funding. We emphasized the impact of budget cuts of up to 75% on LINks and suggested that LINks and HW could not be independent, speak out on behalf of their communities and have an equal place in strategic decision making, if they were dependent on the LA partners for their funding. We said that LHW could not monitor LA services and challenge LAs, if LAs also hold LHW funds.
Earl Howe said that in relation to the funding provided to local authorities for LINks and Healthwatch transparency is essential, i.e. .seeing how funds are allocated and spent and placing this information in the public arena.
We emphasized again that from our considerable experience and research that practice in local government, in relation to the allocation of funds, is sometimes quite remote from the DH's intention to fund LINks and LHW adequately.

Duties on Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to involve LHW
We asked Earl Howe if he would agree to make a specific link between LHW and CCGs in relation to the duty on CCGs to involve LHW in local commissioning decisions. Earl Howe asked if we meant on the face of the Bill and we confirmed that that was our goal. We added that although there is a duty derived from s221 of the Local Government and Involvement in Health Act to involve LINks/LHW in influencing commissioning decisions, that the DH's commitment to HW (demonstrated through the proposed expenditure of £60m), needed to be reinforced by placing a specific duty to consult LHW within the duties placed on Clinical Commissioning Groups. We added that in discussion with GPs that we had found no opposition to the proposed amendment. We pointed out that it was essential for LHW to be involved upstream' as well as at the end of decisions on commissioning.
Earl Howe recognised the importance of this issue about the connection between LHW and Clinical Commissioning Groups. He set out three ways that this could be approached: (1) discussion with CCGs at the local level to engage them; (2) providing guidance; and (3) explore the available duties in the Bill and agreed to take the issue away for further consideration.

Independence of Healthwatch England
Earl Howe said he had met Lord Harris, Baroness Jolly, Lord Patel and Baroness Cumberlege to discuss a number of issues in the Bill including independence of HWE. They were continuing to press for full independence of HWE. He said that he supported HWE being and feeling an independent national body and having direct influence and power within the CQC. He said that HWE's judgement must be independent of the CQC and that it must have direct levers into the CQC. He said the Chair needs to be a special person who is not afraid to speak out and who is wholly credible.
We said that the structures and bureaucracy of CQC were far from ideal for HWE, which should be outward facing and supportive at the start up and development of LHW.
We argued for an independent HWE, which has a Board that is diverse, accountable and elected. We said that if HWE is not accountable locally that it would quickly evolve into a body like the CPPIH - which would be unacceptable. Earl Howe understood the limitations of CPPIH. We asked for elections from LHW based on a process that enables people with necessary skills and competence to stand for elections in their region.
Earl Howe felt that an election process may be more lengthy than an appointments process but agreed to explore our proposal that members in the first year should be appointed as caretakers' , whilst membership of the HWE board in the second and subsequent years would be elected mostly through LHW.
Earl Howe offered a further meeting in the near future to discuss ongoing issues.

End of note
Note prepared by Malcolm Alexander and Ruth Marsden
Checked for accuracy by Kasey Chan: Implementation Lead for Public and Patient Engagement - HealthWatch policy, Department of Health

How to Block Service User (Patient) Rights.

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:43:00 +0000

I'm still reeling. On the twenty first of November, I sent a formal complaint to the Norfolk & Norwich hospital about the issue of my damaged leg as shown in the photograph at http://micoxpplog.blogspot.com/2011/10/ossur-unloader-one-knee-brace_28.html

I received a response from the Chief Executive on the ninth of December. In a two page letter, all she does is accuse me of "aggression" and threaten me with exclusion from their hospital services under their "Zero Tolerance Policy." There is no mention whatever of the minor wounds to my leg.

This threat to exclude me from healthcare very effectively stops me making face to face inquiries at the hospital about the device that caused the problem. I don't know if further correspondence about my complaint will also be construed as "aggressive" and a risk to being unable to use that particular hospital.

I suppose this strategy could be used widely to tame service users protesting about their rights. Has anyone else experienced it?

Heddwch.

Mike.

http://nationalcan.ning.com/

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:25:00 +0000

This organisation is massively valuable and a boon to everyone involved in any concerns about community action. Don’t miss it.

I’ve just posted this on their forum on Whistleblowing:

I'm sorry I missed the webinars but we need to keep this important subject alive. As one of the inaugural members of Freedom to Care and the presenter of the social work case for BASW at the Freedom to Care Parliamentary launch in 1992, I'm very concerned that we should remember that organisation and its founder, Geoff Hunt, who did some amazing work (in parallel with Public Concern at Work) fighting for recognition of real protection for whistleblowers. Freedom to Care was thrown into the universal layby bin around 2005 but luckily the main website (which grew faster than Topsy) was archived by the British Museum. I do see though, that a new clean and simple website called Freedom to Care is alive and well at http://www.freedomtocare.org/ Perhaps it's Geoff. The original can be seen at: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/114181/source/alpha We had hundreds of members from all over the country. There must be some of those in Natcan.

Heddwch.

Mike.

Scots Campaign for a Fair Society

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:39:00 +0000

Just one quote from this excellent document:

4.1.1 We are very concerned about the numbers of disabled people taking their own lives and the connection that these deaths have with the budget cuts. There have been several recent suicides among disabled people across the UK that appear to have been as a direct consequence of people losing or not qualifying for disability and housing benefits. We are concerned that the suicide rate connected to cuts to these benefits will rise as the effects of the proposed Welfare Reform Bill, once implemented, are felt.

Click on the title.

UEA = Un Equal Access?

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:27:00 +0000

I think you might find the following Facebook exchange interesting.

Initially I wrote after being invited to a rally opposing the closure of the UEA music section (some months ago I had been blocked attendance at a trade union meeting in a lecture room because there was no wheelchair access): “I'd like to get there but is it somewhere in the UEA I can get to in a wheelchair? I've been blocked from UEA meetings before because of UEA discrimination!”

The reply from the organisers said: “The event is being held in the LCR which is in Union House and it is wheelchair accessible.

Then, from someone called, 'Charlie Gibbons': “Ye (sic) thats right, you was (sic) discriminated against, nonsense”

and my reply: You experience it and call it nonsense!!!

From another person, JL: “Charlie, disallowing access to certain people is discrimination by definition.”

Charlie Gibbons: “Just because there isn't a ramp isn't discrimination. Telling someone you can't come in because you don't allow disable people is. I take it there was just insufficient access methods to the building you had to attend. That is not discrimination.”

From yet another contributor, JC: “If there isn't access where there feasibly could be access then yes, it's still discrimination by the definition of the law. Regardless of what the law says, if Mike feels discriminated against then he was discriminated against - your comment is offensive, I'd keep quiet before you dig a deeper hole.”

Charlie Gibbons: “No, it means a ramp hasn't been built yet, nothing to do with the law. They have stair climbing wheelchairs on sale now so it is possible to access anywhere in the university. Nothing to do with discrimination whatsoever”

From the other contributor, DS: “Discrimination can be direct (we won't let you in because x) or indirect (you aren't able to come in because x). Either way, it's the responsibility of the Union to ensure that all of our facilities & publicly accessible spaces are accessible to all (including eg. those using wheelchairs) under various legislation, incudint (sic) the Equalities Act 2010.”

Charlie Gibbons: “Indirect discrimination is the law's way of making excuses for something. It isn't discrimination, its just unfortunate”

Me: “Is Charlie Gibbons something to do with the UEA?”

Charlie Gibbons: "Disability union rep"

“I don't take kindly to people who imply that the university doesn't cater for disabled people."

“I take issue with people who say that the university doesn't cater for disabled people when it clearly does."

Me: “My regrets. With this divisive climate of conflict I'm afraid I must bow out of joining you. Good luck with the campaign.”

There are other posts in which Charlie is just making insulting statements. I wondered, open mouthed, if this was real......

...look at Mother Nature on the run in the 21st century.

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:28:00 +0000

I have just read 'Rethinking Disability Policy' by Jenny Morris, a research paper published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and available here:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/rethinking-disability-policy

While I have long admired Jenny Morris and to a good extent have held her up as one of my heros, I'm a little disappointed in this paper. The words suck, eggs and teach come to mind. However, I must say it is a useful codification of how the present political dilemmas undermine disability rights and although she doesn't mention Tory ideology she tacitly refers to its destructiveness. BUT, most disabled people active in service user involvement today would be able to come up with more possible creative solutions – and perhaps more radical than Jenny's.

I think too, she is mistaken about how disabled activists are duped. Just one example encompasses 'personalisation' and 'co-production:'

Our expert user and carer group on 'Personalisation' is well aware of the misuse and misapplications the Department of Health and Norfolk County Council make of the principle and we make sure we lead on continually pointing out these aberrations while reinforcing the positive and accurate application of 'Personalisation' in our teaching sessions for health and local authority staff.

Co-production is naturally integral to the above activities. One of the enduring misapplications, particularly by the local authority, is that of the 'co' of the 'production' being presented as a 'uni' handed down policy to be just commented on by us. It is fast becoming standard practice to expect this and to stop it in its tracks by insisting that we work co-operatively on the original before we go any further. Facilitating meetings can be an expensive process and this kind of hiccup can make local government officers think twice about attempting to manipulate the process. I know of one occasion where a referral back to the originating committee was necessary. These are powerful messages that disabled people are no mugs.

I obviously agree that the survival and continuation of the full Welfare State must be promoted but we have (as just one facebook network confirms) more than enough creative thinkers and political activists to do this. What is missing is co-production to speak with one voice.

Welfare Wreckers

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:59:00 +0000

Karen McAndrew really deserves open recognition for her work - yet she seems to be a very accomplished mystery. All I can find out about her is the little attribution at the foot of her paper published in Ekklesia.

However as Ekklesia welcomes the broadcasting of her work, I’ve pasted her excellent paper here in full:

Betraying disabled people and welfare

karen McAndrew

Abstract
This short research paper maps out the contours of a revolution in Britain’s benefits and welfare system. But the evidence Karen McAndrew examines and evaluates indicates that, far from enabling and supporting sick and disabled people, the changes and cuts the UK government is making – disguised by a superficial rhetoric of compassion and empowerment, and eased by ungrounded prejudices stoked in sections of the media – are causing real harm and destroying the fabric of national care and genuine opportunity. Putting human impact centre stage, this paper sets out disturbing evidence that disabled people are being betrayed, the public misled, and the welfare system endangered. Here is yet more indication that the 'Big Society' is punishing the most vulnerable and eschewing social justice, by making cuts and implementing an inadequate patchwork of policies whereby under-resourced voluntarism cannot substitute for official, statutory neglect.
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” Benjamin Franklin [1]
-------
Introduction: a harmful revolution
There is a 'revolution' going on in Britain, but not in the way Employment Minister Chris Grayling has recently claimed, not always in a visible way – and most definitely not of the kind where those at the bottom of the heap come out on top. Quite the reverse. Consider these developments:
* The removal of people from Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). [2]
* The time Limiting of ESA which is to be applied retrospectively.
* The replacement of the Personal Capability Assessment (PCA) with the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – which has been described by many at the sharp end as ‘unfit for purpose’.
* The cutting the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for those in care homes. [3]
* The abolition of DLA, which is to be replaced by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in 2013/14. [4]
* The abolition of the Independent Living Fund. [5]
* The scrapping of Legal Aid [6] for all welfare benefits matters, and the massive cuts for funding / closures hitting Community Law Centres. [7]
On top of this, we are seeing changes to work programmes, eligibility, housing entitlement, care packages, work guidelines, education provision and hospital care, and cuts to local council budgets for social care and so on – meaning that they will be unable to step in to cover the shortfall left by all these other changes. [8]
The reality is that the current welfare state system is crumbling, and it is only going to get worse as the cuts begin to hit real people and real communities, and as more and more services are privatised. This amounts to a crisis.
1. Media misrepresentations, fraud allegations
How can this be allowed to happen? An extremely important factor in this scenario is the powerful negative influence of defamatory press articles claiming or implying that sick and disabled are mostly “benefit scroungers”, “workshy” and otherwise unworthy recipients of assistance. There has been a continuous drip-feed of such articles over many months and it has biased many people against those on welfare benefits. A good number of these media allegations have been based on inaccurate or skewed statistics, often based on material from the Department of Work and Pensions.
Worryingly, disability hate crime has simultaneously increased. Anne Novis MBE, a leading activist, has submitted evidence on 68 violent deaths of disabled people – and more than 500 other potential disability hate crimes – to a major national inquiry into disability-related harassment. In addition, accusations of huge numbers of fraudulent claims abound. [9]
In fact, the latest available figures from the DWP state that the fraud rate for Incapacity benefit is just 0.5 per cent. The fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance is also just 0.5 per cent, meaning that 99.5 per cent of claimants are not fraudulent. They have the lowest level of fraud of all in relation to welfare benefits. It should be noted that the figures for official error for both benefits are actually higher than the level of fraud, at 1.7 per cent for Incapacity Benefit and 0.8 per cent for DLA. [10]
Despite these manifest facts, the misleading and malicious press articles continue. In December 2010 The Secretary of State himself, in an interview with the Sun, actually seemed to blame the deficit on ‘scroungers’, claiming that “…we have managed to create a block of people in Britain who do not add anything to the greatness of this country. They have become conditioned to be users of services, not providers of money. This is a huge part of the reason we have this massive deficit.” [11]
There appears to be a dubious agenda at play here. Planting seeds in people's minds that those on welfare benefits are faking or defrauding the system certainly makes it easier to justify the disproportionate cuts when they take effect. [12]
Overall, the tabloid-generated negativity towards disabled people has seriously set back attitudes and eroded work towards equality.
2. A series of attacks on disabled people
The massive so-called "migration" (an entirely forced one) of vast numbers of people who are currently entitled to Incapacity Benefit onto Employment Support Allowance or Job Seekers Allowance has already started this month. [13]
There are huge numbers of genuinely ill people being found 'fit for work' because of the flawed computerised Work Capability Assessment that is being used. The vast majority are being pushed involuntarily into the ESA 'Work Related Activity Group' where they are subjected to conditions and sanctions that are harming their health even more. Or they are put directly onto Jobseekers’ Allowance.
Not only that, but the ESA is time-limited to one year, retrospectively. What happens then? They too are forced onto Job Seekers Allowance. [14] Then more sanctions begin; and if they do not get a job, they lose that benefit as well. We are talking here about sick and disabled people with no money to live on.
Professor Malcolm Harrington conducted an independent review in November 2010, which condemned numerous aspects of the Work Capability Assessment. [15] In March 2011, Professor Paul Gregg, one of those who actually designed the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), warned that the WCA is ‘a complete mess' and ‘badly malfunctioning'. [16]
He said: “In the first trial, the system did not work. We need to trial the new, proposed, reformed system to check and prove that it works and avoids the serious stress and misclassification of people that we have already seen, before we start implementing it on a large and vulnerable population. The test so far has caused a huge amount of anguish to the people who have gone through it. We need to have something that is working accurately before we apply it nationally. We shouldn't roll this out until we have something that is working.”
But Professor Gregg’s clear calls for the new, harsher test not to be inflicted on claimants, including incapacity benefit claimants, have clearly not been listened to by government and policy-makers. [17]
3. The government is not listening
A report from the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) says that “[t]he changes recommended by Professor Harrington in his review of the work capability assessment (WCA) should take effect immediately or, if this is not possible, the reassessment of incapacity benefits claimants should be postponed.” [18]
However, Chris Grayling, Minister of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, has announced that 10,000 sick and disabled people a week will undergo a WCA starting in April 2011. They will be subjected to the same test, despite evidence that it does not appropriately assess needs. But critics now argue that it will be even harsher, as DWP have introduced amendments to many of the ‘descriptors’ in the test that make it virtually impossible for anyone to be classed as unfit for work.
A motion to annul these amendments was tabled by Lord Kirkwood on 16 March 2011 (see:http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=4993). He spoke to the 23rd Report of the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which complained that the Government had rushed the new regulations through without thinking through the implications.
The WCA and the company who are running it, Atos, are the subject of fear and anger in many quarters. [19] The medical profession are now also making a stand, as GP Margaret McCartney’s own policy forum on health care illustrates. [20] She writes about attending an Atos Recruitment evening, arising from her concerns about them, referencing an article she published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) [21] and the General Medical Council’s (GMC) response. It appears that the Care Quality Commission cannot supervise the doctors employed by Atos Healthcare because it is a private company and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) have had problems over accrediting the nurse training. Commentators are understandably alarmed. [22]
It must be remembered that these are not just numbers on a page or computer screen, but real people who will be put through untold suffering because of this seriously flawed system. There have already been suicides and deaths. [23] Close observers fear that there will be many more.
4. A threat to life and welfare
The Disability Alliance has this year been surveying disabled people’s views on Government reforms to Disability Living Allowance in particular [24]. With 900 responses analysed, the most shocking finding, DA says, is that nine per cent of disabled people and their families fear the Government cuts will cause death, suicide and make lives ‘not worth living’.
Neil Coyle, Disability Alliance Director of Policy, commented in February 2011: “Disabled people are telling us in great numbers that they fear the overall cuts – but that losing Disability Living Allowance in particular has resulted in people questioning the value of their lives”.
The DA survey also reveals that: * over 800,000 disabled people could lose support if the £1 billion target for DLA cuts is realised; * 13 per cent said cuts would increase their NHS use with further demand also on cash-strapped councils; * 25 per cent of the respondents are in work, but half fear having to quit if they lose access to support; * half the respondents believe DLA does not meet extra disability-related costs of living – and a third report it is ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to get by before cuts are implemented; and * two-thirds of the respondents use DLA to link to other support (e.g. bus passes, council tax benefit and Carer’s Allowance) and fear that the Government plans will have a ‘domino effect’ that will significantly increase poverty and social exclusion for disabled people and their families.
The Department for Work and Pensions Minister for Disabled People, Maria Miller MP, confirmed in December 2010 that the government plans include a 20 per cent cut in DLA expenditure [25]. But the DWP has responded inadequately on estimates regarding the number of disabled people and their families who could lose access to support as a result of DLA reform, and on real costs to the NHS, Treasury and councils, say critics.
5. Business as usual?
Despite all of this, only around a quarter of the recommendations in Professor Harrington's review have been implemented. The WCA will continue to inaccurately assess disabled people at a rate of 10,000 per week. The WCA has been made tougher and results in further disabled people routinely having their needs unmet. New guidance on the Access to Work scheme will mean employers and disabled people receive less help to provide an accessible workplace. And more disabled people will be cut from the benefits system through time-limiting contribution based ESA.
Inevitably this will lead to ever more complaints and appeals and cost even more money. Currently around 40 per cent of appeals are upheld. This figure rises to 70 per cent when the appellant has legal advice. However, this will now be denied as Legal Aid is stripped away. Each time an appeal takes place it costs the taxpayer money. [26]
In October 2010, the DWP had a backlog of 29,700 complaints about ESA decisions that had not yet been referred to a tribunal. The next highest backlog was for Disability Living Allowance, which the Coalition Government is also abolishing, there were 9,600 cases outstanding. Outstanding complaints about all other benefits administered by the Department number just 19,750.
These figures were revealed by Ms Miller in October 2010. [27] As many more people have been put through assessments since then, it is likely that the number has risen greatly in the intervening months, though accurate figures are not yet available. This was before the proposed changes had even begun, and the new harsher WCA test brought in. Critics predict chaos and breakdown.
6. Disability and employment
When sick and disabled people are forced onto Job Seekers Allowance, the question remains as to who will employ them? UK unemployment rose by 49,000 to almost 2.5 million in the three months to the end of November 2010. April 2011 figures showed a slight improvement overall, but with seasonal averages likely to rise in the coming months, and with worse impacts in particular sectors: among women, young people in Scotland, and long-term cases in Wales, for example. [28]
With massive cuts to public sector jobs across the board already, and many more to come, we must ask whether the government honestly thinks that in this climate employers will be willing to take on sick and disabled people who have been out of the workforce for a long time and who will, in all likelihood, only have a very limited capacity for work. Few at the sharp end believe that they will. Only half of disabled people of working age are in work (50 per cent), compared with 80 per cent of non-disabled people. [29]
A study has found that disabled people could be stranded in unemployment because job support services are being devastated by local authority spending cuts. More than half of supported employment providers are facing local authority funding cuts of at least 15 per cent, according to the poll by industry body the British Association for Supported Employment (BASE). [30]
A quarter of providers said they were facing council cuts of between 50 per cent and 100 per cent, prompting some to predict that their service would close. Others were making redundancies and stripping back provision even though caseloads were rising.
7. The human impact
The government talks of reforms, but these cuts and changes (along with many others in social provision and public services) amount to an assault on the core principles and practices of the welfare state as a whole. The danger is that Britain will be left in a situation where the rich can afford the healthcare and support they need and the rest suffer or risk marginalisation and poverty. The government is already considering proposals which would see traditional sick pay for employees replaced by income protection insurance. [31]
The human impact is terrible, [32] and often overlooked or rendered a statistical inconvenience in the way public policy is formulated and implemented, without real involvement and determination by those in the greatest need. [33] People do not ask to become ill or disabled. At any time this can happen to you or to someone you love. A diagnosis of serious illness can change someone’s life overnight. A car crash can, in a moment, leave a person unable to walk, or with brain injury. A series of awful life events can leave someone with depression or anxiety.
Apart from those who are rich enough not to have to even consider the impact of the extra costs they would incur if this should happen to them or someone in their family, the government’s cuts, changes and abolitions affect everyone. The future of our welfare state is at stake. It is time to resist. [34]
---------------
REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES
[1] From the ‘Broken of Britain’ website: http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com/ [2] See Helene Mulholland, ‘Chris Grayling pledges incapacity benefit 'revolution',’ 21 April 2001, Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/21/chris-grayling-incapacity.... Details of the shift from IB to ESA from the Disability Alliance UK: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ [3] DirectGov: Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a tax-free benefit for disabled children and adults to help with extra costs people may have because they are disabled. It is not based on disability but upon the needs arising from it and can be claimed by people in work as well as those who are unable to work. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/disabledpeople/financialsupport/dg_10011731 [4] ‘DLA reform consultation: Great Expectations, Worst Apprehensions’, Arbitrary Constant, 6 December 2010: http://www.arbitraryconstant.co.uk/2010/12/dla-reform-cons.html [5] The Independent Living Fund (ILF) makes payments to disabled people to help them lead a more independent life. The ILF is permanently closed to new applications. See DirectGov:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/HomeAndHousingOptions/YourHom... BBC News: ‘Independent Living Fund to be shut down by 2015’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11985568 [6] ‘Government's proposed reform of legal aid - Justice Committee’, Parliamentary Business:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmjust/681/68... ‘Legal aid cuts: Scales of justice’, Guardian, 4 February 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/legal-aid-cuts-disas... Legal aid briefings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/legal-aid [7] Justice For All: http://www.justice-for-all.org.uk/; ‘Legal aid cuts will exclude most vulnerable from access to justice, Citizens Advice Chief Executive warns’, 12 November 2010:http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20101112; ‘Future uncertain for Community Legal Advice Centres’, Law Gazette, 14 April 2011: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/future-uncertain-community-legal-advice... LAG Social Welfare Law Conference: Facing the future (a major conference will bring together practitioners from both the private and not for profit sectors to discuss the future of legal aid and social welfare law services), Legal Action Group:http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/System/Publications.asp?NodeID=93656&Mod... [8] eGov Monitor: ‘Spending Cuts Force Councils To Cut Social Care Services Targeted Towards Vulnerable People’, 14 April 2011: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/41732; YouTube video: ‘Bringing the Cuts Home’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LgDjHOX_UE; Trades Union Congress: ‘All Together for Public Services’: http://www.tuc.org.uk/theme/index.cfm?theme=alltogether [9] On disability hate crime, see: http://www.politicalcripple.com/d/blog/campaigners-hate-crime-files-are-... and: http://www.disabledgo.com/blog/tag/disability-hate-crime-network/ [10] DWP fraud figures: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_apr09_mar10.pdf Page 9, Table 2.1: Estimated overpayments in 2009/10 [11] Tony Newton Dunn, ‘Ian Duncan Smith on benefits Britain’, The Sun, 1 December 2010:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3254131/We-are-living-in-a-shi... [12] See James Chapman, ‘The great disability benefit free-for-all: Half of claimants are not asked to prove eligibility’, Daily Mail, 15 April 2011: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353111/Disability-benefits-Half... A complaint has been made about this article to the Press Complaints Commission. Other ‘fact checks’ on tabloid claims:http://fullfact.org/factchecks/incapacity_benefit_94_per_cent_can_work-2... http://fullfact.org/blog/have_dwp_benefit_statistics_breached_official_g... andhttp://fullfact.org/factchecks/two_million_incapacity_benefit_fit_to_wor.... [13] See ‘Incapacity Benefits Migration’, a regularly update monitor / analysis from the Disability Alliance: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibmigrate.htm [14] DirectGov: Jobseeker’s Allowance is the main benefit for people of working age who are out of work or work less than 16 hours a week on average.http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOth... On time-limiting the ESA, see DWP spending review: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/adviser/updates/spending-review-2010/#mc [15] ‘An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment’, Department of Work and Pensions (*.PDF Adobe Acrobat format): http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf [16] ‘New disability test “is a complete mess”, says expert’ – Welfare reform expert Professor Paul Gregg says a rushed roll out of the work capability assessment will cause more anguish, Guardian, 22 February 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/22/new-disability-test-is-a-... See also Amelia Gentleman, 'The medical was an absolute joke', Guardian, 23 February 2011:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/23/government-reform-disabil... [17] RethinkTalk: ‘DLA Minister undeterred by campaigners' anger’ and related:http://www.rethink.org/talk/topic/1780-dla-minister-undeterred-by-campai... [18] Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) key policy reports:http://www.cesi.org.uk/NewPolicy/govt_policy; ‘WCA changes should take effect immediately or reassessment of incapacity benefits claimants should be postponed’ and ‘New report from Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion also calls for “employability assessment”,” Rightsnet.org, 14 January 2011; ‘Making the Work Programme work for people with health conditions’, CESI report (*.PDF Adobe Acrobat format): http://www.cesi.org.uk/Resources/CESI/Documents/Research/Think%20Tank%20... [19] Atos Work Capability Assessment: Help and Resource Centre for the Sick and Disabled of the UK:http://Atoswca.org.uk/; Collating experiences of Atos/WCA, Benefits and Work Forum:http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?func=view&catid=13&id=17858 [20] Margaret McCartney, GP: http://www.margaretmccartney.com/blog/?p=904 [21] Medical Work Assessments - Well enough to work?, Margaret McCartney, British Medical Journal (BMJ), BMJ 2 February 2011; 342:d599: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d599.full [22] Response to McCartney, ibid: http://www.margaretmccartney.com/blog/?p=884&cpage=1#comment-670 [23] ‘Demand for fairer benefits tests as two die: case study’, Herald, 20 April 2011:http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/demand-for-fairer-benefits-... Marc Horne and Mark Smith, ‘Author's suicide “due to slash in benefits”,’ Scotsman,http://news.scotsman.com/arts/Author39s-suicide-39due-to-slash.6438473.jp; Nick Somerlad, ‘Sick? Who gives Atos?’, 16 February 2011: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/02/sick-who-gives-Atos.html [24] Disability Alliance, ‘Disabled people fear cuts will make life “not worth living”, 3 February 2011.http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dlareformpress.htm#2 [25] Maria Miller MP on the DLA Consultation, N/D, Able Magazine:http://ablemagazine.co.uk/exclusive-interview-maria-miller-mp-on-the-dla... [26] Regarding appeal rates, see Haringay Alliance for Public Services (HAPS):http://www.hapsnews.net/north-london-anti-cuts-demonstrators-picket-atos... [27] For the number of outstanding appeals for ESA - 29,700 – see Question to Maria Miller, Hansard, 13 October 2010, Column 343W: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101013/text... [28] The total number of unemployed people fell by 17,000 over the quarter to reach 2.48 million, the first drop since last autumn, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). See the revised unemployment graph on the BBC economy tracker website, last updated 13 April 2011:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 [29] Disability and employment statistics. The Shaw Trust: http://www.shaw-trust.org.uk/disability_and_employment_statistics [30] On job support services cuts, see Community Care, 14 April 2011: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/04/14/116674/cuts-strand-di... [31] On the Income Protection Insurance issue, see: http://www.kcj.co.uk/legal-industry-news/Employer-News/Income-insurance-... [32] Ekklesia’s ongoing reporting and analysis of government cuts and their impact can be found here:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/governmentcuts [33] Making those directly facing poverty, marginalisation and disability axial to government policy making on issues that effect the most vulnerable is a primary concern raised by Scotland’s Poverty Truth Commission (http://www.povertytruthcommission.org/), which reported on 16 April 2011. See ‘Huge culture shift needed, says Poverty Truth Commission’, 18 April 2011:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14584 Also, Ekklesia’s statement, ‘Only the poor know the real truth about poverty, says think-tank’: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14580 More on the PTC from Ekklesia:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/povertytruthcommission [34] The Broken of Britain is a grassroots online group formed in response to all the cuts to disabled people, and a good resource for up-to-date information of what is happening.http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com/2011/03/left-out-in-cold-letter-o.... The Disability Alliance is a campaigning network of organisations with around 200 plus members ranging from small, self-help groups to major national disability charities: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/whatsnew.htm See also the Coalition of Resistance, of which Ekklesia is an affiliate: http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/
-------------
THE AUTHOR
© Karen McAndrew. The writer lives personally with issues of illness and disability, and is researching and campaigning against policies and cuts that inflict damage on human communities.
Additional research by Simon Barrow.

Maria - I've Just Met a Girl Called Maria..........

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:41:00 +0000

The following is a reply to my constituency MP to a question I asked Maria Miller, through him, asking her what, about a Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People report, she considered 'not accurate' (see: My original posting.

Dear Richard.
Thank you for your further letter of 4 October on behaIf of Mr Mike LLywelyn Cox of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (my edit) about the proposed reforms of Disability Living Allowance.

Mr Cox has referred to an interview I gave to the Eastern Daily Press on 31 May. In the relevant part of the interview referred to by Mr Cox I said, inter alia, that:
''Obviously, the reform of “Disability Living Allowance is a really important change for disabled people and it's reaIly important that people are clear about what it's going to be doing....I'm slightly concerned that some of the things haven't been accurate.

The Government continues to spend £40bn every year on supporting disabled people and Disability Living Allowance is £12bn of that...

We are working very closely with organisations such as RADAR and the Essex Coalition of the Disabled. I have had a very long conversation with the Norfolk Coalition...”

I regularly meet with disabled people and their organisations and we are working closely with such organisations on our welfare reforms, including with the development and implementation of the new Personal Independence Payment.

I also regularly undertake media interviews, including regional media interviews such as the interview you refer to with the Eastern Daily Press. The purpose of these interviews is to keep people informed of the changes taking place, some of which may affect the readers of these publications.
As part of our ongoing reforms we ask people to come forward and give their views, and the public consultation on Disability Living Allowance reform was one of this Department's biggest ever consultations.

I would invite your constituents to get involved with these consultations and help shape the future provision and services for disabled people in this county.

I hope this reply is helpful to Mr Cox.

No Ms Miller it is not at all helpful - as usual!!!

Proof of the Pudding

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:40:00 +0000

Here’s what users can do if allowed to and put their minds to:

Please visit the new website

www.biz-ability.org.uk

and leave a message for us on the blog.

Congratulations Penny, Hazel and Alex. My kind of people.

The Ossur Unloader One Knee Brace

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:08:00 +0000

After just over half a day wearing this infernal medieval apparatus. Don't let your doctor fool you into having one: Not my GP - Dr Davis at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital Orthopaedic outpatients department. He persuaded me to have this rather than surgery for a medial tear. I am diabetic and have some neuropathy which makes my leg partially numb so I didn't feel the pain when wearing it - I think this is dangerous.

Fly Me To The Moon.

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:28:00 +0000

A very good friend, Sandie Bailes, who is a fellow service user wrote this - and gave me permission to publish it. Social Workers take note!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IS IT WORTH IT?

I have been passionate about Personalisation in both care and health since I joined NCODP.

My sheer joy at the thought of being able to choose my care – whether it be actual folk to do the caring or strategies and things in place to make my brain boogie – could waltz my wellbeing star off it’s page!

But then this joy is scuppered by the grey folk who simply do not understand or are unwilling to take on board Personalisation.

It’s not all grey folk; some are warriors and fight my corner but some simply do not want to see me smile; do not wish to join me in my world of sparkling rainbows and chocolate cuddles.

My aim is to be just Sandie; I am a unique human being; MS is only part of me – it’s not all of me. I look to my PB to enhance and enrich each wonderful day; I look to it to enable me to carry on with the volunteer work I do for NCC, NHS and NCODP. I am useful; I am worth something; I thought I’d lost that forever!

I help to shape care and health in Norfolk and I fight tirelessly for everyone to have a life that’s fulfilling and that they choose for themselves.

My support plan is written with all this in mind. My spending is done with thought and wisdom. I would rather struggle and be independent than have someone to do everything for me. My support plan reflects this.

At least I thought so.

I have been refused practically everything.

My needs have changed; I have become more dependent on others and my confidence has waned. MS is progressive and it’s constantly reminding me of this.

Almost all my wishes have been questioned; I have been asked why I need a third PA; why my two other PA’s cannot take on more hours. I thought I could choose who I employ and for how long each week – as long it meets an outcome and I have the money to do this. I have been refused a third break because it’s too much of a percentage of my total budget but in fact, it’s less of a percentage than I allowed for this year. I wanted to go to WW with a friend and lose some weight and also to gain confidence without always being with a PA or my Arf – I was hoping to be more sociable; this was refused.

I have 2 scooters and these are my legs; one in the boot of the car for shopping and one beefy little blighter that sails down to town and lets me hug the independence I crave. They need insurance; both of them. I used my budget last year to pay for both. This time I have only been allowed to insure one scooter. They have chopped off one of my legs.

I put in my Contingency some monies for a computer printer in case mine died; I use this every day in my work with NCODP etc. It’s as if I have a job like everyone else; it’s exciting and I know some of my work is valued. This has been refused.

I admit to sometimes flying to a distant galaxy and asking for a non-existent moon; I accept this and bow my head in shame!

But the grey folk only see colourless wants and needs. I am asking whether they have read my whole support plan where I state what is important to me and what I want to achieve. I thought this was epic in deciding my spending. I am thinking the only part of my plan that’s been glanced at is the money; how much and on what.

I am devastated and upset. I cannot seem to stem the tears. My heart is breaking because reasoning and compassion don’t exist. I am not a piece of paper with numbers on it and comments – I am a heart and a soul that bleeds with despair.

Please bear this in mind – please!

There'll be some Changes Made.

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:06:00 +0000

A friend from our Parish Council casually asked if I'd be interested in a meeting involving 'future health care' at South Norfolk (District) Council. I was and foiund out that:

Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust is currently the new provider of community services (nursing, occupational therapy etc) in our 'not so local' area. Here in Thurlton we're relatively fortunate to be served by one of three satellites of the South East Community Team based in which is based in Wymondham. However, our satellite team is based in Chedgrave - a marked improvement on previous services, usually based in Norwich or Wymondham.

But when the new Commissioning Manager for South Norfolk, Chris Coath spoke, he revealed something of a snag:

Being in the extreme south east of Norfolk, right against the Suffolk border, half the patients (I'll say 'patients' rather than 'service users' for the sake of populist clarity) are registered with the Beccles GP practice in Suffolk and the other half with the Chet Valley GP practice in Norfolk.

The snag is that the new Norfolk community provision will only apply to Chet Valley patients. The Beccles practice patients will have their services delivered by a provider commissioned by the GP commissioning group which includes the Beccles practice - most probably (although not impossible) not the Norfolk Community Care and Health NHS Trust (NCCH).

So, for instance, half the people in our village, Thurlton will be served by NCCH and half by whichever organisation is contracted by the Beccles group in Suffolk (not known at the time of writing). Discussing this with Chris Coath after the meeting, we agreed a conflict of standards and methods would probably occur, leading to inequalities for people living next door to one another.

Yesterday, I also spoke to Gerard Whitfield, practice manager at the Chet Valley surgery. Gerard told me they are making no special arrangements as far as they are concerned and, pretty well shrugging his shoulders, said the practice divisions had existed for many years. He seemed not to be concerned that inequalities might occur.

Perhaps I and Chris Coath, his background being in heath scrutiny, are being ultra-sensitive. Time will tell.

Mike.

Oh what a beautiful mor-ning, oh what a beautiful day...

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:09:00 +0000

Last Saturday the Annual General Meeting of the Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People took place. A generally happy throng turned up to a very comfortable and well equipped venue (Poringland Community Centre) resulting in a relaxed and productive day.

In the open mike session - where everyone in the room is asked to identify themselves and say what activities or issues they'd been involved in during the year - I opted to declaim the exploitation by public authorities of volunteers to take the place of professionals and other paid employees; both destroying the quality of service received by disabled people and helping to take away the means, for people with families, of making a living.

I couldn't have been more pleased with the reception I had with many people supporting what I was saying and several people seeking me out to talk about it afterwards. Foundations for a campaign, perhaps.

On the sadder side, during the open mike session, quite a few people told us about how they'd been left in a problematic limbo with direct payments/personal budgets assessments. They all recounted how they had lost trace of their social worker and had no idea of what was happening. Talking afterwards, we agreed this was at minimum, discourtesy on the part of Norfolk Adult Social Care and at worst malpractice.

For my part I believe this is malpractice and these social workers in Norfolk, particularly the managers who are imposing the policies leading to this, are breaching the General Social Care Council 'Codes of Practice' for Social Care Workers. Part of the Codes say:

1. As a social care worker, you must protect the rights and promote the interests of service users and carers.

This includes:

1.1 Treating each person as an individual;
1.2 Respecting and, where appropriate, promoting the individual views and wishes of both service users and carers;
1.3 Supporting service users’ rights to control their lives and make informed choices about the services they receive;
1.4 Respecting and maintaining the dignity and privacy of service users;
1.5 Promoting equal opportunities for service users and carers; and
1.6 Respecting diversity and different cultures and values.

2. As a social care worker, you must strive to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers.

This includes:

2.1 Being honest and trustworthy;
2.2 Communicating in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way;
2.3 Respecting confidential information and clearly explaining agency policies about confidentiality to service users and carers;
2.4 Being reliable and dependable;
2.5 Honouring work commitments, agreements and arrangements and, when it is not possible to do so, explaining why to service users and carers;
2.6 Declaring issues that might create conflicts of interest and making sure that they do not influence your judgement or practice; and
2.7 Adhering to policies and procedures about accepting gifts and money from service users and carers.

I'm sure Norfolk Adult Social Care and its social workers is failing to observe the GSCC Codes of Practice, as I think it is plain to see. Since I am one of those in limbo, I intend to make a formal complaint about this as a first step to reporting the service to the GSCC. I am aware the GSCC sanctions are serious - Social Workers found guilty of serious breaches of the codes can be struck off.

Out of these revelations from the floor and a request to the attendees by the board for ideas about where NCODP should go in the future , I suggested to Mark Harrison (NCODP CEO) that we badly need a pan-disability advocacy service which could tackle these problems and suggested NCODP might consider that as a future development. In summary, my impression of what Mark said is:

a) He considers 'self-advocacy' peer support happens throughout NCODP, in the Independent Living Groups for example, and this is sufficient to meet the need. My response is that advocacy proper is a tightly managed and professional practice with its own values and standards and this requires specialist training. In my view this is not available, except for our specialist mental health service and maybe learning disabilities. There is no proper provision for advocacy in personal budgets and direct payments and matters such as ATOS assessments, future PIP applications and NHS issues. I gave my experiences with Age Concern Norfolk as an example of where the standards are let slip (see: http://micoxpplog.blogspot.com/2009/05/advocacy-vs-fear-of-losing-funding.html

b) He said Norfolk County Council is exploring 'Information, Advice and Advocacy' future provision and will be tendering for services, perhaps next year, which NCODP will be able to bid for. I replied that I am in the service user/career group Norfolk CC is consulting on this and, in my opinion, their view of 'Advocacy' is a travesty of the real thing. What we should be looking at is as described above in a). More to the point, I said to Mark that an advocacy service has to be, essentially, an independent service and funding by a public authority conflicts with that. For more instruction I suggest going to 'Action for Advocacy (a4a) at http://www.actionforadvocacy.org.uk/

Lunchtime at the AGM was made entertaining by an acoustic session by part of the group Black Dog, one of the projects supported and brought along by Shaun Hobbs, our Vice Chair. See http://.www.theblackdogmusicproject.org/HOME.htm Despite problems with the vocal mike they gave a good performance. The after-lunch session was also entertaining - a demonstration of one of our linked groups: 'Sing Your Heart Out' - a mental health facility based at Hellesdon Hospital. they had the Poringland rafters ringing with the voices of the majority of attendees.

Then, best of all, our Youth Forum. The session was presented by a group of 6 or 7 of the Forum celebrating the NCODP's 15th birthday for which they had made a special film. What amazing talents these youngsters have: their previous film 'Don't Dis Me I'm Able' was/is a huge success including the special showing in Parliament.

And what an excellent opportunity to socialise and make contacts. Ian from the Youth Forum signalled over to me 'chat needed' when I was talking to Mark about advocacy. When we talked he told me he is currently doing some advocacy work with people with learning disabilities for NCODP. We agreed internal networking within the organisation could be nothing but constructive and swapped contact details.

Iechid da to NCODP for its 15th birthday. At last some optimism amongst all the gloom of the cuts.

Mike.

contact micox@stollard.plus.com for more information
by micox at 6:22 pm

Keep these blighters, these impertinent patients down!

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:22:00 +0000

I was in outpatients today, seeing technician about an unstisfactory knee brace. He wouldn't listen to what I was saying and I had to assert my rights for an equal say. He then took the matter to my treating consultant who saw my on my own and tried to bully me by telling me I had been 'aggressive' with his technical staff - an attitude which would not be tolerated in patients in line with their staff protection policy.

I had some difficulty getting a word in for myself but eventually managed to get in edgeways. Putting in my own case I asked him if he thought I was being 'aggressive.' by speaking up for myself as patient rights says I should be able to. He agreed I was not, but there is a fine line between assertiveness and aggression! I told him I had done nothing different in communication with his technician. His attitude softened.

Seeing the technician again I took up the matter of 'aggression' with him and, his own attitude softened. He said "Oh forget that" and was friendly for the rest of my visit.

But I suppose there is a small risk of you being thrown out of the hospital under the 'no toleration' policies - by asserting your rights. Anyone else had this problem?

2011 adult social care survey from the Information Centre

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:39:00 +0000

You will have seen this report is offered and promoted as a wonderful development in adult social care statistics.

BEWARE

It is the worst kind of propaganda: you will see, if you read the process section (which most people tend to skip), the report honestly criticises itself for having shaky samples and returns parameters. What it doesn’t mention is the huge flaw in the process:

ASKING LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO CARRY OUT THE WORK FOR THE SURVEY.

That invites the introduction of all sorts of negative variables.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THIS REPORT GOES STRAIGHT IN THE BIN.

Heddwch.

Mike.

True Ideology?

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:13:00 +0000

An unexpected letter from Richard Bacon in Parliamentary livery came today. It turns out to be an unasked for consequence of my face to face discussion with Mr Bacon on 24^th June. Apparently it also turns out that Mr Bacon wrote to Maria Miller (Minister for Disabled People) as an immediate result (She says her letter is dated 24^th June) of our discussion and today's letter encloses her belated reply to him.

Maria Miller starts by saying “I am unable to identify the comments that have been attributed to me.” The comments she means are those in my posting of 2^nd June – those I pointed out in my letter in the Eastern Evening News. The link for a copy of my letter on PPlog is: http://micoxpplog.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-letter-of-2nd-june-in-eastern-daily.html and the link for Dr Chris Edwards' report in which she said are inaccuracies is http://www.campaignagainstcuts.org.uk/documents/facts/impact-of-cut-on-disabled-people-in-norfolk-012011.pdf and I will send this blog to Mr Bacon to send it to Ms Miller inviting her to identify what she considers inaccurate in this document.

However, I think it worth quoting the some of her other comments – there is different content and tone from what she has said up to now. She says in her letter:

“...the Government is committed to supporting disabled people who suffer from the most severe barriers and greatest support needs in our society. That is why we set out that people claiming Disability Living Allowance will not have their working age benefits capped. Additionally, we will not remove the Disability Living Allowance mobility component from people in residential care in 2012. We will consider the needs of people living in residential care at the same time as all other Disability Living Allowance recipients as we develop the Personal Independence Payment that is due to be introduced in 2013.

Disabled people who can work, and are facing the most severe barriers to doing so, will get the intensive help and support needed to get closer to the labour market through our new Work Choice Programme. This will provide disabled customers, as well as a wide range of our other customers, with an integrated and personalised system of back-to-work support.”

It seems obvious that her rhetoric department have been active but if we peel back the gloss we can surmise that it reads:

“The Government is committed to removing disabled people from our society by stealthily erecting the most severe barriers for them to smash themselves against and by inducing them to suicide by imposing incapacitating threats which eventually lead to exposure to ATOS.”

“Those left alive we will subject to compulsory labour in concealed factories - meaning we will be able to compete with our far eastern friends for low cost. This is the first stage in creating our successful society in which the rich and privileged can lead a comfortable and problem free existence, using and exploiting our low-born fellows to feed the competitive markets for us.

Our next step will be to clear our country of undesirable aliens."

Given the reality of the brutal attitudes the Government demonstrates to disabled people, is this all fantasy?
Mike.

Refreshing Views

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:39:00 +0000

From the Editor of NHSNetworks News (websupport@networks.nhs.uk) It's worth quoting in full his/her Glossary of terms used in the 'NHS reforms.' Here they are:

April 2013: possible date for Easter 2013; see also September 2013, sometime in 2014, never

Authorisation: ideal state or condition due to be reached by Easter

Bottom up: position advocated by the health bill

Clinical cabinet: place to keep old medical artefacts; pointless item of furniture

Clinical commissioning group: novice rock band with imminent national tour and stadium dates; see also sell-out

Cluster: aggregation of fragments, often nuts

Collaboration: obs. collusion with the enemy; mod. term of approbation

Commissioner: someone who buys things

Commissioner, clinical: someone reluctant to buy into things

Health and wellbeing board: operating table

Manager: term of abuse

NHS commissioning board: top-down bureaucracy dedicated to the promotion of bottom-up reform

Outpost: place no one wants to be sent to; relatively pleasant alternative to Leeds

Patient: person in need of improvement or prevention

Pathfinder: individual sent into dangerous situation and not expected to return

Pause: period of reflection for government

PCT: formerly universally loathed organisation, now regarded as rather useful

QIPP: joke about saving money

Sack: period of reflection for manager

Subnational: control centrally from somewhere other than London; euphemism for regional (see SHA, cluster)

Tasteless QIPP: joke at a particularly inappropriate time

Transition: (of institutions) abolition; (of individuals) process of looking for a new job

Seriously, laughter has strength and perhaps holding the coalition policies for massacring the vulnerable to ridicule can be a powerful tool. Anyone got any more?

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Choose and Book?? Follow Up....

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:58:00 +0000

The mails posted last time and these following up also appear to chime with the press reports about NHS managers allegedly using delaying strategies for surgery to save costs. Hocus pocus anyway.
The next mail was from PALS:
Good Morning
I have had your e-mail forwarded to me, I have confirmed with my colleague - orthopaedics are not exempt from national policy as patients are offered choice and have an 18 week target. Orthopaedic triage facilitates the national policy for patients to be seen within the timescale.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Kind regards
Susan Rixham
PALS Manager – NHS Norfolk
Freephone: 0800 587 4132
****************************************************
I replied straight away:
Hello Susan Rixham.
I have to disagree. Choice should begin with the GP:
"Choice of Hospital" DH July 2003.
Para 1.1.2
"Delivering the NHS plan sets out the requirement that patients and their GPs will be able to book appointments at both a time and place that is convenient to the patient. This might include NHS hospitals locally or elsewhere, Diagnosis and Treatment Centres (DCTs), private hospitals or even hospitals overseas."
National Patient Choice Survey, DH February 2010.
"Introduction.
Most patients (and I am eligible here) have a right to choose any clinically appropriate provider in England that meets NHS standards and costs on referral for their first outpatient appointment (my parenthesis)."
The triage system also cuts across Personalisation, see the information leaflet here:
http://www.personalhealthbudgets.dh.gov.uk/About/Publications/?parent=8077&child=5794
Heddwch
Mike.
=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Choose and Book!! oooh ha hah ha ooooooha ha ha

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:40:00 +0000

This is a recent exchange of e mails between myself and local NHS. The point is self explanatory:

To my GP:

From a patient experience group for JPH I got this:

You and your GP will choose a number of clinically appropriate hospitals. He or she will then print out an Appointment Request letter for you to take away with you. Your Appointment Request letter lists your Unique Booking Reference Number (UBRN), your NHS number, a list of hospital or clinic options for you to choose from and how to book your appointment. Your GP practice will also give you a password with your Appointment Request letter. You can then book your appointment later from home using The Appointments Line (0345 608 8888). the internet or, in some cases, by contacting the hospital directly.

You must have your Appointment Request letter and your password if you want to book your appointment after leaving the surgery.

Does any of this apply to my knee surgery referral? I did get a cursory letter just offering me a choice of going to Kings Lynn or Bury St Edmonds but said I'd stick with the N&N - nothing about booking an appointment (I've heard nothing from N&N).

And from my GP:

Hello.All above is news to me .Not heard of unique booking reference number.Maybe we can discuss next time I see you

To Choose and Book Norfolk:

Freedom of Information Act request.

I have copied my mail of 08/07/11 to my GP Dr Peter Barrie below. Can you please explain 1) why your system seems to be different (and, in my opinion less favourable to the patient) from that stated by the information given to our JPH patient experience group. 2) Why my referral has taken three and a half weeks to get to the point of it getting to the N&N.

From Choose and Book:

Good morning Mr Cox,

Thank you for your email below, you have noted that the letter says 10 days, it actually reads 10 weeks when the N&N will contact you.

This letter is sent out by NHS Norfolk on behalf of the N&N. Any appointment that will be offered will be made directly by them, they would contact you to arrange a suitable date and time once clinics become available.
- Routine Orthopaedic referrals within Norfolk are in the first instance sent to the Orthopaedic Triage department to review and if at all possible treat you, however certain cases cannot be treated here and have to be referred onto the Hospital. The choices you were offered of Bury or Kings Lynn were declined so the referral was passed to the N&N. There are some specialties that do not have the capability of allowing patients to call directly or make their appointment via the Internet, Orthopaedics is one of those specialties which falls into this criteria.
- I hope this answers your query, if not please feel free to contact us.

And My latest to Choose and Book:

Hello.

It looks like we can't avoid the conclusion that this inequality (with other patients who have the choose and book facility) is the one of the results of commissioning outside of the NHS.

One question must be: why should orthopaedics be exempt from national policy? Can you please respond to this.

Yes, I see I misread your letter which makes it even worse. Three and a half weeks to get to this point. Ten further weeks (if it runs the full course) to wait before I can even `book` an appointment for examination = thirteen and a half weeks already. When I first saw my GP about the problem and from the results of an X-ray he told me `We'll get you in for a quick, simple operation.` I told him then `It's not too troublesome at present so rather than the expense for the NHS I'll defer it until it does warrant attention. Now it seems I have to have another orthopaedic examination to decide what to do. Is that not more unnecessary NHS expense?

Now I'm in pain from it all the time, sometimes serious pain meaning I can't move at all and I'm full of heavy, addictive pain killers - more NHS expense. Getting to the N&N is difficult enough. Getting to Bury or Kings Lynn for out-patient appointments is worth raucous laughter. It would be next to impossible!

I'm one of an expert service user group working with NCODP and NHS Norfolk on Personal health Budgets and personalisation. I would be less than responsible if I didn't ask `Just how does personalisation apply here?`

Heddwch

Mike.

Problem Summary

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:48:00 +0000

I think it's worth quoting Brendan Barber (TUC leader) from his speech in Exeter yesterday. He said:

The brutal truth is simply this - that the living standards of millions of low and medium paid public service workers are being hammered in the name of reducing the deficit. As the cuts begin to scythe through our public services more and more jobs are under threat, and as the pay freeze bites - while inflation roars ahead - real wage cuts are making it ever harder to make ends meet. On top of that now they are coming for your pensions. Meanwhile those who caused the crisis are getting off scot free. Let's be clear the real villains today are not the teachers and civil servants - they are the greedy City traders and bankers who got us into this mess.

Pithy - and accurate.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

A Glimpse of the Future

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:02:00 +0000

Here it is; the beginning of the consequences for adult social care Norfolk County Council is creating by their cuts: EDP report

I was at the rally in support of the strikes today but didn't get an opportunity to speak. If I'd had that opportunity I would have shouted from the rooftops the fact that by making vulnerable people scapegoats for the banking failures, this coallition government is killing people.

How can these malignant millionnaires get away with patricide?

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

MP Quest

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:30:00 +0000

I only regret that getting to see my constituency MP, Richard Bacon has been so fraught with difficulty and barriers. In the language of tax matters I'm not sure if it was by means of 'avoidance' or 'evasion' that, at the end of May, he failed to agree to meet me at Methodist Central Hall like others' MPs did - as part of the Hardest Hit March. One of the barriers too has been the telephone attitude of his secretary/receptionist (see the RADAR posting 30/05/11 and That Damned Elusive Mpernel on 08/06/11). The other social barriers are having to travel the round 60 miles to see him in my own car, with the concomitant fuel cost - and the lack of disability access to his 'office,' the Diss Conservative Club.

All that is regrettable too, because after a twenty minute wait (I was on time) in the hallway of the Conservative Club and after a secretary had, wordlessly, and accompanied by another woman (for protection?) had come down the stairs, unlocked a large room opposite the front door and curtly asked me to go in there. I was shepherded to one of the small tables that furnished the room (in a 'cafe' formation) and I parked my scooter there. I was told afterwards when pointing out the poor disability access, that this was the contingency for disabled people.

Almost immediately Richard Bacon appeared stage right and with a quiet, affable manner shook hands. I asked him if he had any objection to my recording the interview and after a brief hesitation he said he hadn't. Without ceremony then, we went straight into a balanced discussion initiated by my question “Are you familiar with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.” From some slight awkwardness I guessed he wasn't but after a debate, including Mr Bacon suggesting the Convention must have no force in English courts (I told him the government is a signatory to it and even though it might not have statutory authority any breach of it would certainly influence court proceedings), I was happy that his consciousness had been raised.

I moved on by offering him a copy of my 'Eligibility Criteria Discriminatory?' blog of 11th January this year. I also saw he had a file with copies of material from PPlog telling me he has done some preparation – good: for again that at least raises some awareness of the issues. I suggested that the central document relating to eligibility criteria, 'Fair Access to Services' should now be reviewed as this is the main vehicle which allows local authorities to severely ration their services – services which should really be tagged 'essential' for disabled people. I also pointed out that is in line with recommendations by the NHS Future Forum. Mr Bacon said he would give it his attention.

We moved on and I gave Mr Bacon a copy of the report commissioned by NCODP from Chris Edwards, Consultant and Senior Fellow of the School of International Development at the University of East Anglia (available at: http://tinyurl.com/3wdh6l5). He had not seen the report before nor was he aware of the context – a rather sad commentary on a Norfolk MP. I explained that Maria Miller had been reported as saying there are inaccuracies in the report but didn't specify what these are. I asked Mr Bacon if he would examine the report, detail any inaccuracies he finds and consider the hardships his constituents would undergo as a result of the cuts. He commented, using the Tory party mantra about the country having been left in dire straights financially and had to make drastic adjustments to the UK finances in order to address the balance of payments deficit. I pointed out that the coalition leadership had promised at the outset that front line services would be protected, that vulnerable, disabled people and those on the poverty line were not responsible for the deficits but were being made to bear the brunt of the cuts and there are alternatives to the actions the coalition is taking. I referred him to the alternatives set out in the latter part of Chris Edwards' report. He agreed to look at it.

Chris Edwards shifted us over sideways to discuss the Welfare Reform Bill. Mr Bacon said he has discussed this fully with his friend Ian Duncan Smith and is in full agreement with the need for reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Incapacity Benefit, including the need to assess people's for work. That it is not right to assume disabled people are unable to work and that there are responsibilities local authorities are not following up with commissioned organisations (referring to the DLA mobility component in residential care).

I agreed DLA is in need of reform but firmly pointed out that the course and methods chosen by the coalition are wrong, inhumane and probably in breach of the UN convention. I emphasised that:

just the receipt of the appointment letter is frightening to people and gave examples from my own past professional experience;
that the contracted organisation ATOS appears from service user reports to be incompetent and damaging (Mr Bacon said he had come across the organisation in the Public Accounts Committee and “was not impressed”);
that the whole assessment disregarded reports from professionals working with the service users such as doctors, nurses and social workers;
and, as the new benefits appear to be less in value than DLA, they are putting vulnerable service users through hell by cutting their income for independent living.

We finished via a discussion about the inequalities around people in his constituency having access to him. He agreed to look at this too.

Meeting Mr Bacon and the work around the event brings about a reciprocal raising of awareness. He is a member of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and his mindset is mainly orientated to matters revolving around that. But, our exchange (hopefully) will raise his awareness, even if just an inch, of disability issues in Norfolk. Reciprocally, I have begun to see an atypical Tory MP: one who had the courage to independently vote against the Iraq war and one who is making a mark campaigning against waste in Whitehall and the NHS IT project. And I'm certainly in full agreement with him when he says: “...the skill most valued in Whitehall is the ability to explain why something that looks like a disaster is in fact a triumph or, at least, more than one had any right to expect in the circumstances.” (Mr Bacon's website at http://tinyurl.com/5ttwjfw).

So when, on 30th May I wrote: “my MP (Richard Bacon South Norfolk) is useless as far as disability is concerned.” maybe I was being too harsh. At this meeting he has certainly listened and debated the issues with fully engaged interest and balance and without superciliousness. Disability is not his field but he appears willing, once over the barriers, to engage with those whose expertise it is. I wonder is there anything to take to the Public Accounts Committee here?

(N.B. Oh flagellation flagellation! When I got home I tied myself to the mast and gave myself ninety lashes for I found I hadn't switched the recorder on properly.)

Mike.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

How about building a health service shopping mall

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:37:00 +0000

Referring to the NHS Future Forum report, this extract is from the ‘Ekklisia’ online newsletter:

“Meanwhile, at least half the board members of some GP consortia have links with a single private healthcare company, a joint investigation by Pulse and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has revealed.

Medical, majority controlled by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, has links with 50 per cent or more of the board members at three of the 52 first-wave GP pathfinders.”

In Memoriam?

noreply@blogger.com (micox) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:10:00 +0000

It is known that since the processes around the work capability test began, several people involved in the assessments have killed themselves.

It would be a powerful symbol of their suffering and demise to set up an internet cenotaph with the inscribed names of those who have died as the result of this sociopathic government policy. It would not be easy - it would of course require the permissions of the relatives of the deceased. But it would be worth the effort.

PPlog

Appeal for Users' ATOS Stories

Mental Health Resistance Network: Judicial Review

Transition of LINks to HealthWatch.

How to Block Service User (Patient) Rights.

http://nationalcan.ning.com/

Scots Campaign for a Fair Society

UEA = Un Equal Access?

...look at Mother Nature on the run in the 21st century.

Welfare Wreckers

Maria - I've Just Met a Girl Called Maria..........

Proof of the Pudding

The Ossur Unloader One Knee Brace

Fly Me To The Moon.

There'll be some Changes Made.

Oh what a beautiful mor-ning, oh what a beautiful day...

Keep these blighters, these impertinent patients down!

2011 adult social care survey from the Information Centre

True Ideology?

Refreshing Views

Choose and Book?? Follow Up....

Choose and Book!! oooh ha hah ha ooooooha ha ha

Problem Summary

A Glimpse of the Future

MP Quest

How about building a health service shopping mall

In Memoriam?

It is known that since the processes around the work capability test began, several people involved in the assessments have killed themselves.

What do you think?