The Real Benefits Cheats

I’m grateful to my Facebook friend, Jan Bailey for bringing this issue to my consciousness.
Like so many other readers, I am disabled. I have written here before about my long complex medical history and how I am affected by the various conditions. Since that writing, I have another preliminary diagnosis, and I’m waiting for a neurologist appointment to confirm it. That of Parkinson’s disease. As far back as I can remember, my maternal grandmother’s hands were very shaky, but it wasn’t until she was admitted to hospital with a collapsed lung that she got her Parkinson’s diagnosis. By that time dementia had set in and she died soon after.
In 2000, I noticed my hands had a tremor, and I asked my GP if it could be Parkinson’s. He dismissed it as a benign tremor. My hands got steadily worse over the years, until quite recently, my GP (not the same one) noticed while we I was visiting her for an entirely different reason she ran a few tests, and without prompting, or knowing of a family history, told me she thought I had Parkinson’s, so now I await the specialist testing.
The reason I had gone to see her, was due to ATOS. I had waited some time for this. First came the telephone call to tell me I was to receive a form and to be sure I was clear as to what that meant. A few weeks later, at the beginning of March, the form arrived, with a deadline return date of 1st April. That seemed like plenty of time on the surface, let me tell you how things went.
First I made an appointment to see my GP. By the time I got to see her, half of my time had gone. I expected her to be aware and we’ll versed in the intricacies of the DWP/ATOS form, but she was not. She took the time to read through the form, surprised that there was no section for her to fill in, just a mention of the possible enclosure of medical evidence to either be sent with the form, or to follow after. I got the distinct impression she had not seen this particular form before and was not aware of the requirements.
Somewhat puzzled, she printed out my medical history with a “to whom it may be concerned” heading and simply added that they should contact her for further information. My appointment time had overrun, but I’m thankful my Doctor’s practice are often late in their appointments, simply because they give as much time as is required to do a thorough job. The medical history is short on details as to how things affect me, the ins and outs of what I can or cannot do, and whether conditions listed are past or current. It fills the criteria of what it is meant to do – provide a history, not a detailed map.
For my kidney specialist, things are more difficult. I have six out patient appointments per year, two months apart each. Though I have met my specialist, Dr Mason, his post varies between hospitals. More often or not, my out patient appointment is with one of his team, rather than himself. I had just had my last out patient appointment before the form arrived, so the chances of getting a conversation with him for this form were remote.
I had a photocopy of the form made, and spoke to the unit head, she is incredibly busy, as all the nursing staff are, and her duties cover more than just our one dialysis ward. She leafed through the photocopy form, looking intent and embarrassed, as usual, though I have to say she is a meticulous worker. She asked which section Dr Mason had to fill in, and I explained the form did not work like that, the information was not requested of him in person. It was left with me to request and then send in addition to the form. She said she would contact him. Two weeks later, I saw her on the ward (I have to be there three days each week), and said I had not heard. She said she would email him.
The form went back to the address a week before Easter together with the GP s medical history and a note saying Dr Mason’ s evidence will follow. I was careful to get a receipt for posting.
Last Friday, the 12th April, as I was about to leave the ward (it was almost 7pm), I bumped into Dr Mason on my way out. He had come to look for me for two reasons, an operation occurring this Thursday 18th April to extract a chest tesio catheter, now my fistula was reliably able to be used for blood line access ( I needed details of coming off warfArin before surgery), and about the “wretched form”. He explained his difficulty was medical confidentiality, that he could write a “to whom” letter as the GP had done, and could describe the process, the necessity of the process and the time it took each week, and that this time could not be compromised. He does not know me we’ll enough to know more details than that. I will receive the letter by Wednesday, he said.
The DWP has not prepared medical professionals for their requirements, in fact, not directly questioning the professionals, but expecting the patient to gather evidence is contrary to their training. Not only is the onus on the provision of the required information wrong, but they then circumvent the system to achieve two things.
1 to rely on insufficient evidence being presented, thereby forcing people who should qualify for benefits off those same benefits, and
2 avoiding payment of fees for requiring information from Medical people, turning them into bureaucrats and putting the onus on the patient to know what to ask for.
The DWP are once again cheating the deserving of benefits by devious means, contributing to to the poverty and inappropriate assigning of disabled people to the work group. Protocol and common sense should direct them to use the established methods, or to prepare medical professionals adequately for a change in protocol. Instead, they open up a huge fault line in between and leave those dependent on benefits to fall into the gaping chasm. I would suggest anyone and everyone copy and paste, or direct your MP to this blog, or quote details of it. We need media and opposition to be aware of this breach of protocol, and those who have run foul of it to be re-tested.
It is my belief that these changes have come about as a means to get people off needed benefits in order to save money, and this exposes far too many dependent people to penury, or to inappropriately being placed on JSA.
The need of Government to reduce expenditure is irrelevant to the people who require state support because they are too ill to work. Let government find a solution to their requirements without endangering the vulnerable. Let’s be really fair, not just fair from the perspective of the wealthy.