Crosswords0 min ago
Don't Shoot The Messenger
ATOS
Following the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, welfare benefits paid to people with disabilities in the United Kingdom are subject to rigorous assessments to determine claimants' level of disability and ability to work.
It is either very easy or exceedingly difficult to decide if a claimant is fit for some kind of work and mostly it is the latter that cause the problems.
Blood tests, X-Rays an Consultants opinions do very little in deciding upon fitness to work, only a face to face interview with the client will give a reasonable assessment and even then medical personel will disagree. Get six doctors to give an opinion as to fitness to work and degree of disability and you will get six different opinions.
ATOS is not the problem, it is the people working for them who have to assess disability.
Whether you agree with my opinion or not, many people are adept and well practised at conning the medical panels, many famous examples have been highlighted in the press.
The point of my post is just to point out the difficulties of dealing with some of the British public who are “out to get anything going.”.......no, they may well not be the majority.
ATOL is a private company, but so what, public agencies since the inception of the Welfare State e.g Benefits Agency and the Medical Appeals Tribunal(M.A.T) have had no better success.
Yes, there will always be “miscarriages of justice” for the likes of Dennis Skinner to highlight with baying support from the opposition benches, but nobody has suggested a better system.
Following the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, welfare benefits paid to people with disabilities in the United Kingdom are subject to rigorous assessments to determine claimants' level of disability and ability to work.
It is either very easy or exceedingly difficult to decide if a claimant is fit for some kind of work and mostly it is the latter that cause the problems.
Blood tests, X-Rays an Consultants opinions do very little in deciding upon fitness to work, only a face to face interview with the client will give a reasonable assessment and even then medical personel will disagree. Get six doctors to give an opinion as to fitness to work and degree of disability and you will get six different opinions.
ATOS is not the problem, it is the people working for them who have to assess disability.
Whether you agree with my opinion or not, many people are adept and well practised at conning the medical panels, many famous examples have been highlighted in the press.
The point of my post is just to point out the difficulties of dealing with some of the British public who are “out to get anything going.”.......no, they may well not be the majority.
ATOL is a private company, but so what, public agencies since the inception of the Welfare State e.g Benefits Agency and the Medical Appeals Tribunal(M.A.T) have had no better success.
Yes, there will always be “miscarriages of justice” for the likes of Dennis Skinner to highlight with baying support from the opposition benches, but nobody has suggested a better system.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sqad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sqad / Corby
The French company, AtoS, has £3billion worth of contracts with the Government. That is a hell of an incentive to please its masters.
Corby, the decision (how disabled someone is) is based on AtoS' assessment. True, they don't approve or deny the claim, that is a Government Departments job. But in effect, whatever AtoS decide is rubber stamped. It is unlikely that a Government Department will see a report that a claimant is able to work but make a different decision itself.
The French company, AtoS, has £3billion worth of contracts with the Government. That is a hell of an incentive to please its masters.
Corby, the decision (how disabled someone is) is based on AtoS' assessment. True, they don't approve or deny the claim, that is a Government Departments job. But in effect, whatever AtoS decide is rubber stamped. It is unlikely that a Government Department will see a report that a claimant is able to work but make a different decision itself.
"Gromit.......if you have any evidence that the assessment of "clients" is based on financial reward for the assessors by reducing the benefits for the "clients"...................please produce it. "
i recall sometime in the past yeart most whistleblower who was or had been a GP or whatever saying that the reason he packed in at ATOS was becasue of exactly that, they were under pressure to fail people as that earns ATOS more money and at how disgusted he was at the way peopole were being treated and assessed as fit to work and he gave numerous examples.
Cant remember where but I think it may have been on the BBC site.
I find it highly unlikely that ATOS arent on some sort of commission/bonus/ whatever its called or however its worked into the contract based on not failing claims
Think about it
i recall sometime in the past yeart most whistleblower who was or had been a GP or whatever saying that the reason he packed in at ATOS was becasue of exactly that, they were under pressure to fail people as that earns ATOS more money and at how disgusted he was at the way peopole were being treated and assessed as fit to work and he gave numerous examples.
Cant remember where but I think it may have been on the BBC site.
I find it highly unlikely that ATOS arent on some sort of commission/bonus/ whatever its called or however its worked into the contract based on not failing claims
Think about it
I do understand that different assessors may come to different conclusions about the fitness to work of someone they are assessing, CD.
And there will very obviously be some cases, which by the nature of the incapacity are going to be especially contentious, but they would be the minority of cases.
As it currently stands, there are some particular issues about the way the system is organised which are problematic.
1. Outsourced assessments for State benefits to a private company which is not therefore directly accountable via FoI requests. This means governments can play bureaucratic ping pong when it comes to awkward requests.
2. Conflicts of Interest. ATOS are also one of the largest companies in the area of getting disability claimants back to work. They are also the ones contracted to assess the disablity levels of those claimants. There is a clear conflict of interest and a clear pecuniary advantage to ATOS in having as many claimants declared fit to work as possible. Anecdotal evidence, together with media investigations ( Dispatches, Britain on the Sick, C4) suggest ATOS is incentivised to find people fit for work, leaving them open to the claim that they are massaging the assessment findings for their own financial benefit. Professor Harrington, an architect of the assessment scheme has raised concerns about how objective the assessments are.
3. Some opacity with respect to the qualifications of the ATOS assessors.They do not, for example, need postgrad qualifications in disability assessments nor the Diploma in Disability Assessment Medicine in order to be an assessor. The data entry system, LIMA, also relies very heavily on standardised phrases when submitting an assessment. Potentially useful to standardise responses, but subject to the charge of bias in the wording.
4. The immediate suspension of benefits payments upon appeal against an assessment, until that appeal is heard. No right to an immediate or swift appeal, so in some cases, people can be waiting months, in some cases a year or more, before their cases are heard. I think this is iniquitous.
These are the areas where there needs to be change. I am not disputing the need for such assessments, but I do think the current system is unfair- grossly so when it comes to suspension of benefits until your appeal is heard -and opaque, and, with ATOS both making the assesssments AND being selected as one of the partner "disabled back to work programmes", clearly open to accusations of conflicts of interest and financial gain.
And there will very obviously be some cases, which by the nature of the incapacity are going to be especially contentious, but they would be the minority of cases.
As it currently stands, there are some particular issues about the way the system is organised which are problematic.
1. Outsourced assessments for State benefits to a private company which is not therefore directly accountable via FoI requests. This means governments can play bureaucratic ping pong when it comes to awkward requests.
2. Conflicts of Interest. ATOS are also one of the largest companies in the area of getting disability claimants back to work. They are also the ones contracted to assess the disablity levels of those claimants. There is a clear conflict of interest and a clear pecuniary advantage to ATOS in having as many claimants declared fit to work as possible. Anecdotal evidence, together with media investigations ( Dispatches, Britain on the Sick, C4) suggest ATOS is incentivised to find people fit for work, leaving them open to the claim that they are massaging the assessment findings for their own financial benefit. Professor Harrington, an architect of the assessment scheme has raised concerns about how objective the assessments are.
3. Some opacity with respect to the qualifications of the ATOS assessors.They do not, for example, need postgrad qualifications in disability assessments nor the Diploma in Disability Assessment Medicine in order to be an assessor. The data entry system, LIMA, also relies very heavily on standardised phrases when submitting an assessment. Potentially useful to standardise responses, but subject to the charge of bias in the wording.
4. The immediate suspension of benefits payments upon appeal against an assessment, until that appeal is heard. No right to an immediate or swift appeal, so in some cases, people can be waiting months, in some cases a year or more, before their cases are heard. I think this is iniquitous.
These are the areas where there needs to be change. I am not disputing the need for such assessments, but I do think the current system is unfair- grossly so when it comes to suspension of benefits until your appeal is heard -and opaque, and, with ATOS both making the assesssments AND being selected as one of the partner "disabled back to work programmes", clearly open to accusations of conflicts of interest and financial gain.
Gromit/baz
OK, down to brass tacks.
The financial advantage for an assessor to be rewarded, it to say to the Dr, you get £100 for failing a client or £50 for supporting a client's claim.
Are you saying that happens?
OR
ATOS informs the assessing doctor that his/her services are no longer required because he\she is supporting too many claims?
Would be interests in the answer.
OK, down to brass tacks.
The financial advantage for an assessor to be rewarded, it to say to the Dr, you get £100 for failing a client or £50 for supporting a client's claim.
Are you saying that happens?
OR
ATOS informs the assessing doctor that his/her services are no longer required because he\she is supporting too many claims?
Would be interests in the answer.
its impossible to know for sure exactly how it works.
but as I have said ATOS as a company must be getting some sort of incentives by failijng claims overall, maybe not the individual assessors, but the company must, it wouldnt be in the governments interests or ATOS if it werent the case.
my brother is a Consultant Surgeon (oncology specifically) and he has often said that hes had varioius enquiries regarding patients from insurance compamies ATOS etc and he always has said that the enquiries are so ambiguous that it borders on laughable, ...eg is the patient fit for work, then he has to get back to them and ask what kind of work, are they just licking a stamp and puttingn it on an envelope and in a seated position all day, what exactly ? and then he says it invariably gets to them trying to put words into his mouth to the effect that they can work and eventually they say that hes not being particularly helpful and on it goes
there is no doubt in my mind and there never has been that there is an expectancy for ATOS to produce the goods in numbers of failed claims.
This is government tied in with private sector, there is always and always will be underhand goings on and skulduggery with the sorts of £000,000 that are being thrown about
but as I have said ATOS as a company must be getting some sort of incentives by failijng claims overall, maybe not the individual assessors, but the company must, it wouldnt be in the governments interests or ATOS if it werent the case.
my brother is a Consultant Surgeon (oncology specifically) and he has often said that hes had varioius enquiries regarding patients from insurance compamies ATOS etc and he always has said that the enquiries are so ambiguous that it borders on laughable, ...eg is the patient fit for work, then he has to get back to them and ask what kind of work, are they just licking a stamp and puttingn it on an envelope and in a seated position all day, what exactly ? and then he says it invariably gets to them trying to put words into his mouth to the effect that they can work and eventually they say that hes not being particularly helpful and on it goes
there is no doubt in my mind and there never has been that there is an expectancy for ATOS to produce the goods in numbers of failed claims.
This is government tied in with private sector, there is always and always will be underhand goings on and skulduggery with the sorts of £000,000 that are being thrown about
sqad, ATOS may not be the problem, but they ain't looking like any part of the solution either
http://
http://
http://
http://
// The doctors would ‘cherry pick’ the easy clients, as they were paid per case and often saw, on average, 14 cases per day. Very good, considering they worked office hours.
We were monitored closely on how many clients we put into Support Group . If our totals were above the national average, we would have to ask an ‘experienced’ member of staff for permission to put a client into a support group, even if it was plainly obvious they could not return to work. Those members of staff who had a low number of support group additions, were praised.
I assessed a client with mental health issues who I entered into the support group. I was so concerned about her I stayed with her, in the waiting room, until a family member came to collect her to take her home. I was instructed to attend a meeting with my manager and was given a verbal warning for costing Atos money – when I asked how this was possible, I was informed that during the time I was with this client in the waiting room, I could have assessed somebody else. //
http://
// Dr Wood, who was given special responsibility to champion mental health at Atos, said: "I was instructed to change my reports, to reduce the number of points that might be awarded to the claimants. I felt that was wrong professionally and ethically. //
http://
I can see why people are uneasy with the idea of ATOS 9or anyone else) being incentivised based on the number of cases they reject, but I'm not sure there's an alternative, given that we know that not all claims can be justified. If there was no incentive wouldn't they just take the easy option of accepting every claim- and that would just encourage bogus claims.
Gromit
http://
Ah! at least that periodical hasn't got an axe to grind.
http://
Ah! at least that periodical hasn't got an axe to grind.
Oh, I see - I did not realise that you wanted us to come up with the solution as well as identifying the problems with the existing system.
1. Seek legal opinion on whether the ATOS contract can be quashed or amended.
2.If it can be quashed, retender the bid.If at all possible, bring it back in house so that the DWP become the legal instrument responsible for carrying out state functions. Payment to be based purely on the number of assessments. No incentives or bonus payments for hitting targets regarding the number of claimants assessed as being unfit to work.
2a. The payment criteria by which the awarding company/department get paid is to be made transparent, if not the actual amount.
2b. Patients own GP notes/assessment to be given greater weight.
3.Repeal the instruction to stop benefits payments immediately upon the claimant making an appeal against an assessment.
4. Remove the conflict of interest. If ATOS is the preferred supplier of disability allowance assessments, they should not be awarded the majority contract for the disabled back to work contracts as well.
These would do for a start. Bit unfair of you though to expect us to come up with a full blown, fully referenced alternative scheme on a few hours notice :)
1. Seek legal opinion on whether the ATOS contract can be quashed or amended.
2.If it can be quashed, retender the bid.If at all possible, bring it back in house so that the DWP become the legal instrument responsible for carrying out state functions. Payment to be based purely on the number of assessments. No incentives or bonus payments for hitting targets regarding the number of claimants assessed as being unfit to work.
2a. The payment criteria by which the awarding company/department get paid is to be made transparent, if not the actual amount.
2b. Patients own GP notes/assessment to be given greater weight.
3.Repeal the instruction to stop benefits payments immediately upon the claimant making an appeal against an assessment.
4. Remove the conflict of interest. If ATOS is the preferred supplier of disability allowance assessments, they should not be awarded the majority contract for the disabled back to work contracts as well.
These would do for a start. Bit unfair of you though to expect us to come up with a full blown, fully referenced alternative scheme on a few hours notice :)
if you have gone through the treadmill of these assessments, and it's been posted before, and on here, including myself, you will get the message that it's a flawed system. If you score the requisite points on one test then nil on another a year later does that mean you were, are wagging it. you see a doctor perhaps more likely a nurse who does the tick the box exercise. ATOS info goes to DWP as to the person's fitness for work, by way of the criteria set down in the tick box exercise that is set out by ATOS. can walk across room unaided, move head little bit, does not rock back and forward indicator of mental health issues, according to ATOS form, so if you don't rock back and forward because of acute anxiety that then you are fine, hurrah.
one last point is that welfare rights officers have long said that it's wrong, that people are taken off whatever benefits by dint of ATOS form, word, that the system itself is flawed.
i could add a lot more but what would be the point,
one last point is that welfare rights officers have long said that it's wrong, that people are taken off whatever benefits by dint of ATOS form, word, that the system itself is flawed.
i could add a lot more but what would be the point,
Latest Posts
Like A Cross Between Juniper Snd...
Gaming3 mins ago
Motoring7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
