'Sick note culture'

[Sketchy]

Anyone any views on Rishi Sunak's determination to stamp out the apparent sick-note culture?

Are out-of-work benefits too easy, or too hard to get these days?

Is Covid responsible for having a negative effect on people's mental health, etc?

Really interested to hear everyone's views on this, whether for or against. (Apologies if there's already a thread, I couldn't find one)

 

[CarmenGhia]

"Sick-note culture", whatever that is, would probably be less of a problem if mental health services were more widely available.

Many workplaces have become absolute nightmares as well.
---
"Sick-note culture", whatever that is, would probably be less of a problem if mental health services were more widely available.

Many workplaces have become absolute nightmares as well.
---
"Sick-note culture", whatever that is, would probably be less of a problem if mental health services were more widely available.

Many workplaces have become absolute nightmares as well.

 

[HotesTilaire]

What are the sick notes, where the GP says “not fit for any work” for? Depression, Cancer treatment, chesty cough?
Which industries are affected b which reasons?
How does this compare year on year?
Of sick notes saying “may be fit with adjustments” how many employers made the adjustments, how many didn’t and the person had to stay off?

“Fit notes” were introduced how many years ago now? And the problem with them is Drs signing too many people as unfit, so now Drs won’t be involved. So Rishi knows better than all the GPs in the UK. Cool, cool.

Its a very generalised claim that theres a “sick note culture” I’d say government has a “blame sick people” culture.

 

[Melian]

Is he forgetting we've got Covid and ridiculous waiting lists?

I've personally had no issues claiming out of work benefits. But I used to know someone who couldn't claim JSA because he was too sick but not sick enough for ESA. I think after a few tribunals / appeals he did get ESA.

 

[bottlewrapper]

I think many workplaces are too pressurised, with too few staff doing the work. There is no slack in the system to have a chat with a colleague, or nip out for an errand. People are really unpleasant if you're customer facing. Nothing is ever good enough under the appraisal system. Many companies operate 'up or out' staff management to get rid of people, so doing your job well without progressing isn't an option either. Random rounds of redundancies don't help. All the more lovely staff benefits (supermarket vouchers at Christmas, long team lunches, staff children's parties, summer parties, staff sports teams) seem to have vanished, in favour of tax free bikes and season ticket loans, nothing which might take you away from your working hours. Diversity initiatives become weaponised and feel like they are just there to trip people up, rather than foster inclusion. Anyone with caring responsibilities managed out asap. Admin staff done away with, so there is no one to help with little administrative tasks.

Plus everyone has the financial stress of high rents/high mortgages, so it's not possible to build up some savings and take time out whilst looking for another job.

It all contributes to a horrible environment, so I don't blame purple for feeling overwhelmed and burnt out. What else can they do?

 

[KerGlr5]

The government demanding civil servants back into the office, where home working helps some people actually hold down a job, but they're now complaining too many people are out of work... can't make it up.

 

[Melian]

The government demanding civil servants back into the office, where home working helps some people actually hold down a job, but they're now complaining too many people are out of work... can't make it up.

But generally speaking, for many disabled people WFH is a great help

 

[KerGlr5]

But generally speaking, for many disabled people WFH is a great help

Exactly... and I think it's a huge benefit to help many into work where they couldn't work in an office environment, but I've heard of many people applying for an exception to the rule being denied.

 

[gimmethattea]

I'm a bit confused about this idea of a sick note culture. I have had sick notes very few times in my working life, in fact 3 times in total.

Once for various pregnancy related reasons, another because I had Gestational Diabetes and my work weren't making the necessary changes to enable me to test my blood sugars and a third for when I started on antidepressants and needed time for my body to adjust after I became suicidal (not work related stress).

What confuses me is just this assumption that it's just so easy to get signed off and claim money, because it doesn't actually feel that way.

Sure, there will always be people that know how to manipulate systems and check the right boxes, but I'm pretty sure Rishi, and particularly his wife, have cost us far more money in tax avoidance than those who are struggling to access any support and then suffer to the point they cannot work.


Perhaps if we had more mental health support, easier access to medical appointments, better wages, weren't in a cost of living crisis... Then perhaps people wouldn't be pushed to breaking points.

 

[Moth]

Sunak's speech was pretty confusing. I think there's two things driving the proposed policies, cutting the spend on benefits and getting people back into work to support a reduction in work visas for immigrants. The main strategy appears to be making benefits more difficult to get and reducing what benefits are paid e.g. giving some disabled people a one-off grant rather than paying PIP every month.

The stuff about 'sick note culture' was really difficult to understand. None of the benefits paid to disabled people or the decision that people are unable to work long term are dependent on a 'fit note' from a GP. The decisions are already all taken by DWP staff based on an assessment by a 'health professional' employed by private companies contracted to the DWP. There is a public consultation about the future of 'fit notes' which seems to be suggesting that the government (or presumably one of their tame contractors) will take over provision and management of sick absence from work. That seems incredible to me. The kindest interpretation I can give it is that the government are proposing a sort of 'public sector' occupational health advisory service to support employers but really the logistics and scope of such a proposal seems impossible to me.\

I work with a lot of benefit claimants and although I am sure there is an element of fraud, I think it is vastly overestimated by the public. To be honest it is often so difficult to get people the benefits that they deserve that I wonder how anybody can 'game the system' as the Tories like to call it.

 

[HotesTilaire]

I think it’s weird and they want to score points for an election

 

[Sketchy]

I do remember reading (on another platform, a couple of years ago) posts from someone who said they worked as a work capability assessor and they were spilling the beans about how they were encouraged to sign as many people off benefits as possible, apparently they received quite a healthy bonus for doing so - for each person as I understood it - which I thought was outrageous. Maybe they were a genuine WCA, maybe not - but I wouldn't put it past the powers-that-be to do such a thing.

And are these assessors true health professionals? If so, why aren't they working to help clear the backlog of patients, some who've been waiting for years for various types of treatment? And if not, how the hell can they know whether a person is able to work or not just by asking a few questions. Surely your own GP/consultant, etc, should be the only ones qualified to determine someone's mental or physical health and capabilities?

 

[HotesTilaire]

They usually are somehow trained medically, but that’s not the point of them.
It’s because the system is set up to deny benefits and make it hard for people to get them. Apparently around 75% of pip appeals are successful. That means 75% are unfairly turned down until they appeal to a court.

 

[Moth]

I do remember reading (on another platform, a couple of years ago) posts from someone who said they worked as a work capability assessor and they were spilling the beans about how they were encouraged to sign as many people off benefits as possible, apparently they received quite a healthy bonus for doing so - for each person as I understood it - which I thought was outrageous. Maybe they were a genuine WCA, maybe not - but I wouldn't put it past the powers-that-be to do such a thing.

And are these assessors true health professionals? If so, why aren't they working to help clear the backlog of patients, some who've been waiting for years for various types of treatment? And if not, how the hell can they know whether a person is able to work or not just by asking a few questions. Surely your own GP/consultant, etc, should be the only ones qualified to determine someone's mental or physical health and capabilities?

I've heard the stuff about bonuses for denying benefits plenty of times but I don't think there's ever been any proof. I think it has been documented that that they have to meet a quota for the number of people they see and face consequences if they don't. This results in the assessments being rushed and mistakes made.

The assessors come from people qualified as a nurse, physiotherapist, paramedic or occupational therapist and must have two years experience. They get training in how to carry out the assessment. The WCA is based on a questionnaire on number of criteria about how the person's disability or health condition affects their ability to work. The answers given on the form are then cross checked by the health professional's discussion and possibly examination of the claimant. They then make a recommendation to a 'decision maker' in the DWP who decides if the benefit is awarded and at what rate.

GPs and Consultants don't want to be involved in the decision as to whether someone receives benefits. Once upon a time they could be asked to fill in a questionnaire to support their patient's benefits claim but so many refused to do it that I think the practice has now more or less stopped.
---

They usually are somehow trained medically, but that’s not the point of them.
It’s because the system is set up to deny benefits and make it hard for people to get them. Apparently around 75% of pip appeals are successful. That means 75% are unfairly turned down until they appeal to a court.

You have to be careful with percentages. It's true that of the cases considered by the tribunal the original DWP was overturned in about 71% of cases.

However, out of a total 3 million PIP applications over the last 5 years, 56% ( 1.7million) of all claims were awarded on first application, 5% (230,000) of all claims were changed after review by the DWP (Mandatory Reconsideration) and 3% (100,000) of all claims changed by the tribunal.

Overall it means that about 13% of people who were awarded PIP only got it after challenging the initial decision of which 5% only got it after going to a tribunal.

 

[HotesTilaire]

I've heard the stuff about bonuses for denying benefits plenty of times but I don't think there's ever been any proof. I think it has been documented that that they have to meet a quota for the number of people they see and face consequences if they don't. This results in the assessments being rushed and mistakes made.

The assessors come from people qualified as a nurse, physiotherapist, paramedic or occupational therapist and must have two years experience. They get training in how to carry out the assessment. The WCA is based on a questionnaire on number of criteria about how the person's disability or health condition affects their ability to work. The answers given on the form are then cross checked by the health professional's discussion and possibly examination of the claimant. They then make a recommendation to a 'decision maker' in the DWP who decides if the benefit is awarded and at what rate.

GPs and Consultants don't want to be involved in the decision as to whether someone receives benefits. Once upon a time they could be asked to fill in a questionnaire to support their patient's benefits claim but so many refused to do it that I think the practice has now more or less stopped.
---


You have to be careful with percentages. It's true that of the cases considered by the tribunal the original DWP was overturned in about 71% of cases.

However, out of a total 3 million PIP applications over the last 5 years, 56% ( 1.7million) of all claims were awarded on first application, 5% (230,000) of all claims were changed after review by the DWP (Mandatory Reconsideration) and 3% (100,000) of all claims changed by the tribunal.

Overall it means that about 13% of people who were awarded PIP only got it after challenging the initial decision of which 5% only got it after going to a tribunal.

But how can you set a quota of how many people to deny at WCA?
And surely PIP also has quotas, their assessors aren’t all medically trained.
Who works out that 1 in 3 applications should fail, and how? Based on what Info?

PIP extrapolate one thing and use it to deny points in other areas, eg if you can dress your bottom half then you can stand and bend to cook a meal, so you can cook a meal even if you told them you can only stand for one minute and have no fine motor skills and can’t cook a meal.

I still don’t understand what benefits have to do with SSP -which is what you get paid if a GP signs you off sick, and entitles you to be paid £90/£100 a week SSP?
---
Ok I actually read the proposal properly, it’s here

Disability benefits system to be reviewed as PM outlines "moral mission" to reform welfare

The Prime Minister has outlined a package of sweeping reforms to put work at the heart of welfare and deliver on his “moral mission” to give everyone who is able to work, the best possible chance of staying in, or returning to work.

www.gov.uk

 

[Blurp]

I'm on UC with extra payments and no more sick lines because of cancer. I also get PIP (or rather it's just changed to ADP from Social Security Scotland) for separate reasons (awarded at tribunal).

I had a UC reassessment interview yesterday and I was terrified that they would take my extra payments away but it was all about my finances, not a single thing about my health. They want bank statements, PayPal statements, share statements etc. I previously had to send photos of me with my passport in.

 

[Sketchy]

Btw, is a sick note now called a fit note? Or are they two different things?

 

[bunnyboo]

So let me get this straight... skip the GP (you know, the actual experts) completely and subcontract "fitness assessments" to private firms—typically the lowest bidders, so the usual cowboys will do the bare minimum, get millions from the British taxpayer to do it whilst we all just watch as even more people suffer, quality of life lowered, help not provided?

The UK is becoming more ridiculous by the day, it's like a caricature of 18th-century barons and billionaires.

 

[Mamacita]

So let me get this straight... skip the GP (you know, the actual experts) completely and subcontract "fitness assessments" to private firms—typically the lowest bidders, so the usual cowboys will do the bare minimum, get millions from the British taxpayer to do it whilst we all just watch as even more people suffer, quality of life lowered, help not provided?

The UK is becoming more ridiculous by the day, it's like a caricature of 18th-century barons and billionaires.

Pretty much but you're giving them too much credit by saying lowest bidders. That implies a competitive process but in reality they'd probably outsource to their mates

 

[cowtastrophe]

I don’t think there is a ‘sick note culture’. From my limited experience claiming benefits, it’s made so byzantine and capricious that the majority of people don’t end up claiming anywhere near what they’re entitled to.

It‘s just another dog whistle attempt by the Tories to appeal to a certain group of people who might vote for them.