Government Proposals Form

Some if the questions are repetitive and I wrote 'I have already answered this ... see previous answer to previous question'.
Who ever designed the wuestionaire appears to be lacking in education lol.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

A few of my answers:

People can share the same condition but not demonstrate the same impact. Current assessments are based on experience carried out by clinicians, who are often removed from the reality of said condition and have little or no experience handling functional impact. This is already a recipe for disaster and can only worsen if you focus on condition rather than impact. Should you add GP Physician Associates to your assessment stable for use in carrying out condition Vs impact, God help those of us whose livelihood lands on their desks.

Current PIP Assessors, whilst we would like to think they are reliable and confident in conducting PIP assessments, can, from personal experience, be found to be unreliable, lacking in confidence and or knowledge to challenge both the applicant and the assessment process itself, resulting in complaints to the relevant governing body. In the worst-case scenario, they are totally out of their depth, with minimal provider training and, dare I say it, support from their commercial employer. In addition to that, the disjointed understanding between these private assessors and the DWP Reviewers and the potential for harm becomes exponential. So, the real and honest answer lies with identifying who/what you consider a 'healthcare professional' to be, surely?

Suddenly, you have changed from a 'healthcare professional' to a 'medical expert', and a formal diagnosis? How are you differentiating between the two? And dare I stick my neck out here and say that most of us applying for PIP provide the necessary evidence, e.g. copies of prescriptions, doctor and hospital letters, and other associated healthcare professionals input such as physiotherapists, dieticians, etc., and yet still we get refused PIP. The same evidence is then presented for appeals and again refused until, in the end, we have to go to the Tribunal where at least two 'medical professionals' often take a different view to your 'healthcare professionals by granting an award. Surely, these people at the Mandatory Review stage are clinical experts, or is it just another use of the Pareto principle? 20 in, 80 out? For some of us, our only recourse is the healthcare regulatory bodies.

What a poorly phrased question. The NHS and its associated bodies will have already done the groundwork by providing you with all the evidence and diagnoses. Or are you saying that people are qualifying for PIP without the relevant evidence? If that is the case, then it is correct that people should fail at the first assessment. Or maybe this is an indirect question to ascertain how we would feel about the Government/DWP setting up yet another private entity benefitting from taxpayers' money to set up more Well-Being taxpayer white elephant situations, similar to the Atos, etc. gang profiting from our ailing bodies, but settling on our ailing minds instead? People receiving PIP will already be under regular review by their healthcare professionals; why would you question this process?

There is talk of a new "digital" health company - Infosys - links to cabinet. So more tendering for useless private sector intervention when a panel of GPs sitting once a month to review cases would ensure a degree of consistency, they'd understand the process of diagnosis & evaluation, I'm sure using BMA standard doctors, rather than for profit companies, would help everyone involved.