The Work & Pensions Committee is launching a new inquiry on
how the assessment processes for Employment Support
Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payments
(PIP) are handled by DWP contractors ATOS, Capita and
Maximus, and how the application, assessment and appeals
processes for these two benefits are working.
In the last Parliament the Committee held an urgent one-off evidence
session in the wake of the announcement of
Government plans to restrict the number of people who
qualify for PIP, a move which would limit the cost of PIP by £3.7
billion. Evidence taken then revealed worrying disparities
between the applicants’ recall of the assessment process and the
final report produced to enable DWP to make a decision. The
Committee also heard concerns about the contractor
assessors’ ability to understand and properly assess a wide range
of physical and mental health conditions, and about the dignity
and conduct of the assessment process. The latest data shows
that claimants are successful in appealing against their decision
in 65% of cases, for both PIP and ESA, and that there has been an
29% increase in such appeals being registered since this time
last year.
Given high rates of overturn at appeal, the
Committee invites evidence on the effectiveness of assessment
processes used to determine eligibility for these benefits, and
the experience of applicants going through it. The Committee is
interested in receiving recommendations for change both on the
assessment process for each benefit individually, and on common
lessons that can be learned from the two processes.
MP, Chair of the Committee,
said: “The truly amazing rate of overturned ESA and PIP decisions
seems to point to something being fundamentally wrong with the
initial assessment and Mandatory Reconsideration stages. Quite
apart from the human cost this represents – the distress and
difficulty for applicants trying to get help with daily living or
getting into work – it looks to be wasteful, inefficient, and a
huge cost to taxpayers.
“We would like to hear from claimants – and assessors – about
whether and where the system works, or is failing, and how it
might be fixed.”
In particular, the Committee would welcome evidence on the
following points, by 10 November 2017:
Assessors and assessments:
- Do
contractor assessors possess sufficient expertise to carry out
assessments for people with a wide range of health conditions?
- Is DWP
quality control for contractors sufficient and effective?
- Should the
options for reforming the Work Capability Assessment mooted in
the Government’s Improving Lives green paper be taken forward?
- What
examples of best practice in assessing eligibility for benefits
are available internationally, and how transferrable are they to
ESA and/or PIP?
Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal:
- Why do
claimants seek to overturn initial assessment outcomes for ESA
and/or PIP?
- Why are
levels of disputed decisions higher for PIP than for ESA?
- Is the MR
process working well for claimants of ESA and/or PIP?
- What
accounts for the rate of overturned decisions at appeal for PIP
and/or ESA?
- Are there
lessons that could be learned from the ESA MR and appeal process
for PIP and vice-versa?
- What changes
could be made earlier in the process to ensure fewer claimants
feel they need to appeal?
Claimant experiences:
- Do
prospective claimants currently understand the purpose of the
assessment?
- How could
claimants be helped to better understand the assessment process?
- Are some
groups of claimants particularly likely to encounter problems
with their assessments – and if so, how can this be addressed?
- Should the
assessment processes for PIP and ESA be more closely integrated?
How else might the processes be streamlined for claimants?
