Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Benefit applicants - '75% fit to work or drop claims'
The following came from the BBC news site , I read the article and have to say found its contents rather worrying !
The fact that 36% of people abandoned their claims is a worry , does this imply massive fraud or are people so intimidated by bureaucracy that they simple give up ?
HERE IS THE ARTICLE IN FULL :
Benefit applicants - '75% fit to work or drop claims'
Three-quarters of people who apply for sickness benefit are found fit to work or drop their claims before they are completed, official figures show.
Department for Work and Pensions figures showed 887,300 of 1,175,700 employment and support allowance (ESA) applicants over a 22-month period failed to qualify for assistance.
Of those 39% were judged fit to work, while 36% abandoned their claim.
Employment Minister Chris Grayling said the welfare system needed changing.
He said the figures underlined the need to reassess people still on the old incapacity benefit - a process which the government began rolling out last month.
"Once again we have clear evidence of the need for change in our welfare system.
"We now know very clearly that the vast majority of new claimants for sickness benefits are in fact able to return to work. That's why we are turning our attention to existing claimants, who were simply abandoned on benefits.
"That's why we are reassessing all of those claimants, and launching the work programme to provide specialist back to work support," he said.
"We will, of course, carry on providing unconditional support to those who cannot work, but for those who can it's right and proper that they start back on the road to employment," Mr Grayling added.
The DWP figures cover the period from 27 October 2008 - when ESA was introduced by the former Labour government - to 31 August 2010.
The fact that 36% of people abandoned their claims is a worry , does this imply massive fraud or are people so intimidated by bureaucracy that they simple give up ?
HERE IS THE ARTICLE IN FULL :
Benefit applicants - '75% fit to work or drop claims'
Three-quarters of people who apply for sickness benefit are found fit to work or drop their claims before they are completed, official figures show.
Department for Work and Pensions figures showed 887,300 of 1,175,700 employment and support allowance (ESA) applicants over a 22-month period failed to qualify for assistance.
Of those 39% were judged fit to work, while 36% abandoned their claim.
Employment Minister Chris Grayling said the welfare system needed changing.
He said the figures underlined the need to reassess people still on the old incapacity benefit - a process which the government began rolling out last month.
"Once again we have clear evidence of the need for change in our welfare system.
"We now know very clearly that the vast majority of new claimants for sickness benefits are in fact able to return to work. That's why we are turning our attention to existing claimants, who were simply abandoned on benefits.
"That's why we are reassessing all of those claimants, and launching the work programme to provide specialist back to work support," he said.
"We will, of course, carry on providing unconditional support to those who cannot work, but for those who can it's right and proper that they start back on the road to employment," Mr Grayling added.
The DWP figures cover the period from 27 October 2008 - when ESA was introduced by the former Labour government - to 31 August 2010.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
BBC-'Radical' NHS shake-up may jeopardise patient care
'Radical' NHS shake-up may jeopardise patient care
The planned shake-up of the NHS in England that will put GPs in charge of buying in services could risk patient care, warns a group of influential MPs.
The Public Accounts Committee says pushing through the changes while seeking £20bn in efficiency savings may damage front-line services.
The concerns follow those of others, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's close adviser Norman Lamb.
The government insists the overhaul is essential to safeguard services.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "The efficiency challenge and our reforms are inextricably linked.
"Our reforms help the NHS make savings, because getting rid of tiers of bureaucracy will mean an extra £1.7bn each year to reinvest in patient care.
"And if we don't give doctors and nurses the power to make decisions for their patients, then quality of care will suffer."
Under the plans GPs will be handed control over much of the health budget and the health service will be opened up to greater competition from the private sector.
At the same time the government also expects all hospitals in England to become foundation trusts, free from central control.
And it wants to secure efficiency gains across the NHS of up to £20bn by the end of the financial year 2014-15 and to reduce administrative costs in non front-line organisations by 33% over the same period.
Ministers maintain this is achievable, but the Public Accounts Committee is less sure.
Its report warns that ministers have "no control" over many of the costs.
And if the department's estimate of the one-off costs associated with reorganisation turns out to have been too low, it will make the challenge of achieving savings for re-investment even tougher, it says.
Mounting concerns
Committee chairman Margaret Hodge said: "The Department of Health acknowledged the risks associated with this radical shake-up of the NHS.
"Whilst the reforms could complement the imperative of achieving £20bn efficiency gains by 2014/15, the reorganisation might also distract those responsible for making the savings while safeguarding standards of patient care."
She added: "We were also concerned that the Department has not yet developed a high quality risk management protocol for either the commissioning or providing bodies.
"The Department acknowledged that some health trusts and some GP practices had some way to go to achieve foundation trust status or become commissioning consortia.
"The Department must have effective systems in place to deal with failure so that whatever happens, the interests of both patients and taxpayers are protected."
Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of Council at the British Medical Association, said: "The Public Accounts Committee is right to highlight the risks posed by such a massive restructuring at a time of financial crisis.
"However, it is not just the timing, but also the direction of travel of these reforms that will cause problems.
"We share the concerns of the PAC that the consequences of increasing competition in the NHS have not been fully addressed.
"'Market failures' in healthcare have far more serious consequences than in other industries - and may have little connection with quality of care, or even patient demand."
The planned shake-up of the NHS in England that will put GPs in charge of buying in services could risk patient care, warns a group of influential MPs.
The Public Accounts Committee says pushing through the changes while seeking £20bn in efficiency savings may damage front-line services.
The concerns follow those of others, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's close adviser Norman Lamb.
The government insists the overhaul is essential to safeguard services.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "The efficiency challenge and our reforms are inextricably linked.
"Our reforms help the NHS make savings, because getting rid of tiers of bureaucracy will mean an extra £1.7bn each year to reinvest in patient care.
"And if we don't give doctors and nurses the power to make decisions for their patients, then quality of care will suffer."
Under the plans GPs will be handed control over much of the health budget and the health service will be opened up to greater competition from the private sector.
At the same time the government also expects all hospitals in England to become foundation trusts, free from central control.
And it wants to secure efficiency gains across the NHS of up to £20bn by the end of the financial year 2014-15 and to reduce administrative costs in non front-line organisations by 33% over the same period.
Ministers maintain this is achievable, but the Public Accounts Committee is less sure.
Its report warns that ministers have "no control" over many of the costs.
And if the department's estimate of the one-off costs associated with reorganisation turns out to have been too low, it will make the challenge of achieving savings for re-investment even tougher, it says.
Mounting concerns
Committee chairman Margaret Hodge said: "The Department of Health acknowledged the risks associated with this radical shake-up of the NHS.
"Whilst the reforms could complement the imperative of achieving £20bn efficiency gains by 2014/15, the reorganisation might also distract those responsible for making the savings while safeguarding standards of patient care."
She added: "We were also concerned that the Department has not yet developed a high quality risk management protocol for either the commissioning or providing bodies.
"The Department acknowledged that some health trusts and some GP practices had some way to go to achieve foundation trust status or become commissioning consortia.
"The Department must have effective systems in place to deal with failure so that whatever happens, the interests of both patients and taxpayers are protected."
Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of Council at the British Medical Association, said: "The Public Accounts Committee is right to highlight the risks posed by such a massive restructuring at a time of financial crisis.
"However, it is not just the timing, but also the direction of travel of these reforms that will cause problems.
"We share the concerns of the PAC that the consequences of increasing competition in the NHS have not been fully addressed.
"'Market failures' in healthcare have far more serious consequences than in other industries - and may have little connection with quality of care, or even patient demand."
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Pip Patient Intelligence Panel
I would like to draw your attention to this interesting org/web site :
PIP (www.piphealth.com ) is all about giving a voice to millions of patients who suffer from ailments and diseases. PIP is now bridging the gap between patient’s opinions and healthcare providers by offering patients a platform on which to share their opinions, feelings, and experiences on your ailment or disease.
PIP Health is a patient research company
We have created a panel of patients across a range of illnesses and diseases in order to offer better insight and understanding of patients needs to pharmaceutical, and healthcare professionals across the globe.
Drs Nadine Van Dongen established PIP Health in 2008, after she had experienced a life threatening car-crash and thus being a patient for a long time to recover. Nadine is now the Managing Director and has been instrumental in pushing for a better understanding of patient’s needs, and quality of life.
PIP offers research services to Healthcare stakeholders. The information shared is always anonymous, and unattributed.
Every time a panel member completes a survey €1 will be paid back to charity groups providing vital research, support and care. In addition at the end of the year, PIP will donate 5% of profits to healthcare charities in the UK.
PIP is currently based in the UK and in the Netherlands, but is expanding into new markets across the globe in the coming years.
PIP (www.piphealth.com ) is all about giving a voice to millions of patients who suffer from ailments and diseases. PIP is now bridging the gap between patient’s opinions and healthcare providers by offering patients a platform on which to share their opinions, feelings, and experiences on your ailment or disease.
PIP Health is a patient research company
We have created a panel of patients across a range of illnesses and diseases in order to offer better insight and understanding of patients needs to pharmaceutical, and healthcare professionals across the globe.
Drs Nadine Van Dongen established PIP Health in 2008, after she had experienced a life threatening car-crash and thus being a patient for a long time to recover. Nadine is now the Managing Director and has been instrumental in pushing for a better understanding of patient’s needs, and quality of life.
PIP offers research services to Healthcare stakeholders. The information shared is always anonymous, and unattributed.
Every time a panel member completes a survey €1 will be paid back to charity groups providing vital research, support and care. In addition at the end of the year, PIP will donate 5% of profits to healthcare charities in the UK.
PIP is currently based in the UK and in the Netherlands, but is expanding into new markets across the globe in the coming years.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Birmingham City Council disabled care limits 'unlawful
The following article is from the BBC news , all I can say is that this is a victory for common sense !
-------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham City Council disabled care limits 'unlawful'
Judges have ruled that Birmingham City Council's plans to limit social care for disabled people are unlawful.
The families of four severely disabled people took the case to the High Court sitting in Birmingham.
The test case is the first in a series of possible legal challenges to councils around the UK mounted by those facing cuts to social care.
Birmingham City Council is planning to reduce care packages to about 4,000 people over the next three years.
The authority, a Conservative-Liberal coalition, says it needs to make the cuts to help slash £118m from its adult and communities directorate.
In total, a spokeswoman said, it needs to save £308m from its budget.
It explained that only those whose needs had been assessed as "critical" would qualify for council-funded care.
But the judges ruled that the council business plan was unlawful because it failed to comply with Section 49a of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The four people, who cannot be named for legal reasons, include a 65-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties who receives 24-hour care in a home paid for by the council.
'Hugely beneficial'
They also include a 25-year-old man with a rare genetic disorder and severe learning disabilities who receives overnight respite care, also funded by the council.
Both were set to lose their council-funded care.
The sister-in-law of the 65-year-old woman said: "I'm deeply concerned about what impact this will have and it's important to take a stand here.
"She relies on the council's support to assist her with daily living skills and to support and promote her independence, including assisting with personal care tasks, preparation of meals and safely accessing the community.
"The care is hugely beneficial and without it her quality of life would fall dramatically."
The case was also brought on behalf of a 30-year-old deaf, autistic man with severe learning disabilities who is prone to self-harm. His specialist day care would also have gone under the plans.
The fourth person is a 36-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties whose day care centre will close and who is also set to lose respite care.
A spokesman for the council said they would be looking at the judgement in detail before making a decision on whether to lodge an appeal.
He said: "The generality of the budget is not affected, this is a decision about the eligibility criteria for adult social care.
'Opportunity to pause'
"Like all councils, Birmingham faces a huge financial challenge, with adults and communities having to make a share of the savings like all other directorates, and we need to assess the impact of this decision.
"It is also important to point out that this judgement is about the process we went through with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act, not the actual decision about where savings should be made."
Tony Rabaiotti, head of local government in the West Midlands for public sector union Unison, welcomed the ruling.
He said: "This is a landmark ruling and a tremendous victory for thousands of vulnerable people across Birmingham who rely upon social care provision.
"Social care workers across Birmingham have been telling Unison over the last few months that they are genuinely frightened by the proposal to so severely axe social care provision.
"They have been telling us that vulnerable people will simply be left to fend for themselves. The council now has the opportunity to pause, think again and work with us to maintain quality social care provision for the people of Birmingham."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham City Council disabled care limits 'unlawful'
Judges have ruled that Birmingham City Council's plans to limit social care for disabled people are unlawful.
The families of four severely disabled people took the case to the High Court sitting in Birmingham.
The test case is the first in a series of possible legal challenges to councils around the UK mounted by those facing cuts to social care.
Birmingham City Council is planning to reduce care packages to about 4,000 people over the next three years.
The authority, a Conservative-Liberal coalition, says it needs to make the cuts to help slash £118m from its adult and communities directorate.
In total, a spokeswoman said, it needs to save £308m from its budget.
It explained that only those whose needs had been assessed as "critical" would qualify for council-funded care.
But the judges ruled that the council business plan was unlawful because it failed to comply with Section 49a of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The four people, who cannot be named for legal reasons, include a 65-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties who receives 24-hour care in a home paid for by the council.
'Hugely beneficial'
They also include a 25-year-old man with a rare genetic disorder and severe learning disabilities who receives overnight respite care, also funded by the council.
Both were set to lose their council-funded care.
The sister-in-law of the 65-year-old woman said: "I'm deeply concerned about what impact this will have and it's important to take a stand here.
"She relies on the council's support to assist her with daily living skills and to support and promote her independence, including assisting with personal care tasks, preparation of meals and safely accessing the community.
"The care is hugely beneficial and without it her quality of life would fall dramatically."
The case was also brought on behalf of a 30-year-old deaf, autistic man with severe learning disabilities who is prone to self-harm. His specialist day care would also have gone under the plans.
The fourth person is a 36-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties whose day care centre will close and who is also set to lose respite care.
A spokesman for the council said they would be looking at the judgement in detail before making a decision on whether to lodge an appeal.
He said: "The generality of the budget is not affected, this is a decision about the eligibility criteria for adult social care.
'Opportunity to pause'
"Like all councils, Birmingham faces a huge financial challenge, with adults and communities having to make a share of the savings like all other directorates, and we need to assess the impact of this decision.
"It is also important to point out that this judgement is about the process we went through with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act, not the actual decision about where savings should be made."
Tony Rabaiotti, head of local government in the West Midlands for public sector union Unison, welcomed the ruling.
He said: "This is a landmark ruling and a tremendous victory for thousands of vulnerable people across Birmingham who rely upon social care provision.
"Social care workers across Birmingham have been telling Unison over the last few months that they are genuinely frightened by the proposal to so severely axe social care provision.
"They have been telling us that vulnerable people will simply be left to fend for themselves. The council now has the opportunity to pause, think again and work with us to maintain quality social care provision for the people of Birmingham."
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Addicts and DLA
So the media is a wash with "moral outrage and execration " over the fact that 80,000 addicts receive welfare payments but correct me if I am wrong, but back in 2006 was not the figure 100,000 ? so in real terms there has been a drop of 20% .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)