Here we round up some of the major reforms put forward in the DWP consultation - what that would mean for you if the Labour Government picked them up
The overhaul consultation for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) closed at midnight last night - so what does this mean for you?.
The consultation was launched by former Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and was announced in his "sick note generation" speech in April. The Department for Work and Pensions soon after published its "Modernising Support Green Paper" which detailed the changes put forward by the former Government.
It is very important to note that since the consultation was published, Labour came into power. This could make the consultation redundant depending on the new Labour Government's plans - however, they have not officially scrapped it. The consultation closed for new last night and the DWP is currently analysing the feedback.
Here we round up some of the major reforms put forward in the DWP consultation - what that would mean for you if the Labour Government picked them up.
Replace regular payments with vouchers
One of the major plans proposed in the paper was replace the regular payments with one off grants and vouchers. Around three million people in the UK claim PIP. First introduced in 2013, PIP is the main disability benefit for UK adults with long term medical conditions and disabilities. The benefit aims to help support claimants with the extra costs a disability can have.
How much people get depends on how difficult they find everyday tasks and getting around. Currently, PIP comes in two parts and - you can be entitled to both or just one of these - and they pay an enhanced and standard rate. If you are entitled to both of the highest rates, you can receive £184.30 each week.
The DWP paper said it wanted to explore “alternative approaches to support” for people claiming. These vouchers and one off grants would aim to help people with "significant costs such as home adaptations" or expensive equipment. The vouchers would also contribute to towards specific costs for purchases of aids, appliances or services.
Another suggestion from the DWP would be to introduce a "catalogue scheme". This would be an "approved list" of support items such as working aids and equipment which claimants could choose to get at "reduced or no cost". The DWP also proposed cutting PIP payments for those who have “lower” costs, claiming they “may have better outcomes from improved access to treatment and support than from a cash payment”. The DWP claimed this approach would offer more “tailored support”.
Change to PIP eligibility criteria
One of the biggest misconceptions about PIP is that eligibility is down to the condition you have. It is not. It is down to how to impacts your day-to-day life. For example, if a person has type 1 diabetes, it does not automatically make them eligible for PIP. However, if the condition has caused them to lose their site which makes it more difficult for them to undertake daily tasks, then they may be eligible - although it is not guaranteed.
The DWP proposed to change the already tight criteria for the benefit. In the consultation, the DWP claimed, that the “criteria currently used in PIP assessments do not always fully reflect how a disability or health condition impacts on a person’s daily life”. The DWP asked whether the thresholds for entitlement correctly reflect the need for ongoing financial support. This included considering whether the current descriptors – such as the need for aids and appliances – were good indicators of extra costs.
The DWP also proposed changing the qualifying period for PIP. This proposal would change the way long term conditions are determined and potentially remove the reassessments for those who have lifelong conditions. However, this was not confirmed in the consultation papers.
PIP assessment reforms
The DWP also proposed that the PIP assessment could be reformed with the consultation documents stating: “PIP is over a decade old and a lot has changed since the assessment was developed. We know some people continue to find PIP assessments difficult and repetitive and view the assessment as too subjective. We will consider whether some people could receive PIP without needing an assessment by basing entitlement on specific health conditions or disabilities supported by medical evidence.”
The paper cites New Zealand as an example, where the amount of disability allowance is based on a person’s extra costs which a health practitioner verifies. As well as this, the DWP also cites policies in Norway which see people needing to provide a letter from a GP outlining the nature of their condition and the associated extra costs to get a "Basic Benefit" payment.
However, it has been pointed out that Norway's system isn't too dissimilar to the current PIP assessment. Currently, PIP claimants must provide extensive medical evidence about their condition and how it impacts them. It also requires them to undertake a points-based assessment in which the amount of points they score determines their eligibility for the benefit.
This changes the current approach of "how your disability affects you" to an assessment based on your condition. This means you would only be assessed for the benefit if you have a formal diagnosis from a medical expert. The DWP claims will make it “easier and quicker for people with severe or terminal conditions to get the vital support they need”.
The consultation documents say: "We need to understand how we would choose the conditions that would be eligible for support, whether this approach would be fair and if it would help us ensure support goes to people with the highest needs and those who have extra costs associated with their condition."
This is the only policy in the consultation which received a somewhat positive response. Disability charities have called for reform on PIP assessments for several years now. However, it does bring the risk that some medical conditions, which may not be deemed to be long term or severe enough, could be cut entirely from PIP - which could leave some people with those conditions unable to claim any financial support even if they are severely struggling.
