What should the Tories do now?

Germanshepherdsmum

I believe that assessors should be unbiased - one’s GP is likely to have bias in favour of the patient.

Not if they (GP) are doing their job thoroughly. My GP always talks through various options before issuing fit notes.

It would be fine if the DWP were planning on using medically qualified people, but it sounds as though this new system will use their own “trained” but not medically qualified staff.

Germanshepherdsmum

I believe that assessors should be unbiased - one’s GP is likely to have bias in favour of the patient.

😲

Thank goodness you're retired and never likely to become an assessor... your contempt for, and dislike of, of your fellow humans is beyond beleif..

'belief'

So you’re happy for there to be bias in assessments Maizie? Not exactly fair is it?

Are GPs biased, inevitably, because the patient is ill or under the weather and wants a sick note, refusal will affect the ongoing relationship. However for long term or repeated sickness a second assessment is probably needed, mental health issues in particular are very easy to fake because there are no physical symptoms.

I think a GP is more likely to give the patient the note they ask for in order to get rid of them.

Katie59

Are GPs biased, inevitably, because the patient is ill or under the weather and wants a sick note, refusal will affect the ongoing relationship. However for long term or repeated sickness a second assessment is probably needed, mental health issues in particular are very easy to fake because there are no physical symptoms.

Oh, blimey. Another one.

If you can't trust a trained doctor to objectively assess the state of health of a patient what is the world coming to?

No, I wouldn’t trust the patient’s GP to make an objective assessment. Would you trust a lawyer to sit in judgement of their own client in court?

Lawyers are paid to argue a case for one side or the other - the truth is irrelevant.

I do not think GPs are biased - but they will be the people who have the sort of background knowledge that might give a clearer picture; and a professional awareness of how specific illnesses have an impact on people lives and capabilities.

I would not be happy to see further non-professionals being half-trained because they are cheaper to employ. We already have social work assistants, physician's assistants etc. It is called dumbing down.

It’s pretty easy to fool a doctor with non specific symptoms even if you are sent for further tests or consultations the results can be inconclusive.
It’s naive to believe that nobody is abusing the system because my work colleagues do it all the time, it’s my hard earned taxation that is going to pay them and I don’t like it.

Another Tory defection to Labour!

Natalie Elphick

Extraordinary!

I’m not terribly happy at labour accepting her tbh

I figure Sunak might be right about a hung Parliament. He just won’t need an election to get there, at this rate.

I didn’t watch it but apparently PMQs was a total car crash for Sunak.

He died on his feet.

Luckygirl3

Lawyers are paid to argue a case for one side or the other - the truth is irrelevant.

I do not think GPs are biased - but they will be the people who have the sort of background knowledge that might give a clearer picture; and a professional awareness of how specific illnesses have an impact on people lives and capabilities.

I would not be happy to see further non-professionals being half-trained because they are cheaper to employ. We already have social work assistants, physician's assistants etc. It is called dumbing down.

If you read my post you will see that I was talking about a lawyer acting as a judge.

Cossy

Germanshepherdsmum

I believe that assessors should be unbiased - one’s GP is likely to have bias in favour of the patient.

Not if they (GP) are doing their job thoroughly. My GP always talks through various options before issuing fit notes.

It would be fine if the DWP were planning on using medically qualified people, but it sounds as though this new system will use their own “trained” but not medically qualified staff.

I totally agree. The whole problem with the assessment system as it is, is that no doctors are involved in the process until you get to the appeal stage. Even if the claimant provides their own medical evidence, it will mostly be disregarded in favour of the assessors’ report. Assessors can be anything from a nurse, to a paramedic or a physiotherapist and beyond the few days training they receive as ‘disability analysts’ may not have had any experience at all in most of the conditions they are asked to assess.

And while the DWP regularly ‘audits’ assessors’ reports using staff who have never met the claimant, but are able to ask for the points awarded to be revised if they disagree, we’re never going to have an unbiased system. Unfortunately, those who have never been through the assessment process really don’t understand how heavily weighted it is against the claimant. As evidenced by the number of claimants successful at tribunals, which include a doctor as part of the panel.

I didn’t suggest that the unbiased assessor should not be medically qualified.

Germanshepherdsmum

So you’re happy for there to be bias in assessments Maizie? Not exactly fair is it?

There already is a bias in assessments, only it’s against the claimant. It doesn’t used doctors, but a range of healthcare professionals recruited from the NHS who are given a few days training as ‘disability analysts’ - they may not have had any experience in the conditions they’re supposed to be assessing, and yet their reports can override medical evidence supplied by the claimant themselves, including consultant reports. The problem is that the government is trying to do things on the cheap and in the process is swinging from one system to another, and none of them are fit for purpose - as evidenced by the number of claimants who are successful at tribunal, which is the only way they get to be assessed by an actual doctor.

^ Another Tory defection to Labour!
Natalie Elphick
Extraordinary!^

I think this deserves a new thread WWM. I’ll start one👍

MaizieD

Katie59

Are GPs biased, inevitably, because the patient is ill or under the weather and wants a sick note, refusal will affect the ongoing relationship. However for long term or repeated sickness a second assessment is probably needed, mental health issues in particular are very easy to fake because there are no physical symptoms.

Oh, blimey. Another one.

If you can't trust a trained doctor to objectively assess the state of health of a patient what is the world coming to?

Perhaps GSM would like to share her opinion on your views of mental health issues?

Whitewavemark2

I’m not terribly happy at labour accepting her tbh

Neither am I. Her dealings when her husband had to resign were unethical, to put it mildly. She is also a Johnson fan.

Katie59

It’s pretty easy to fool a doctor with non specific symptoms even if you are sent for further tests or consultations the results can be inconclusive.
It’s naive to believe that nobody is abusing the system because my work colleagues do it all the time, it’s my hard earned taxation that is going to pay them and I don’t like it.

It may be easy to fool your GP, but it’s not so easy to fool the assessors who are judging your eligibility for benefit. PIP is one of the hardest benefits to claim because the whole system is weighted against the claimant. DWP assessors can, and frequently do, override the medical evidence provided by the claimants themselves. The assessors themselves don’t make the decision on the benefit award. They provide a report to the DWP decision makers, who are not medically qualified and rely on the assessors’ report for guidance. Even where independent medical evidence is supplied by the claimant, they will usually rely on the assessors’ report and the points system it employs to make the decision.

I just read the first page and then skipped to the last where the original topic has gone madly off-base.

I shall answer the OP though by saying this:

When Cameron was in a similar fix he agreed to holding a referendum on the EU in order to contain the leakage to UKIP.
We all know how that ended with a succession of PMs, only two of which were elected.
Sunak has not been elected and therefore seems to be clinging on for cynical reasons. He has no Brexit referndum to offer UKIP/Reform (basically the same) and cannot now see a way out. He is clinging to his Rwanda policy begins he still thinks the vast majority of voters care most about immigration, which they don't and probably never did.
What should he do now?
Call a GE obviously, he has no mandate, no control and no ideas.

MaizieD

^Plus a lot can happen between now and whenever the GE is called.^
Like what, Oreo?. What could happen that would suddenly make people turn back to the tories?

Dickens' excellent post at 9:18 this evening is a pretty comprehensive catalogue of what is really peeing people off and the indications are that the tories aren't going to do a thing about rectifying any of them.

Instead, today's tory gems seem to have been Sunak's plan to bypass GPs and install teams of unqualified people to assess people who are in receipt of sickness benefits as to their fitness for work (hasn't this been done before and wasn't it the cause of untold misery?) and a suggestion from a tory MP that postal voting is abolished. Just want people wanted, of course....

Teams of unqualified assessors have been employed since 2013 when PIP was introduced and the Work Capability Assessment system was brought in line with it. It’s been causing untold misery to sick and disabled people ever since. I don’t know what Sunak thinks is any different about it, except that the rules for both benefits will be tightened so much that ever higher levels of sickness and disability will be disregarded. And of course, abolishing postal voting will hit the same people, so they won’t be able to show their displeasure at the polls.

I didn’t suggest that the unbiased assessor should not be medically qualified

So GSM should these assessors undertake a 5 year degree in order to be recognised by the General Medical Council as being medically qualified? Or will there be some other system of deeming one ‘medically qualified’?