What is Your View on ATOS being replaced by the US Company Maximus

Other conditions
1

Hi all,

Firstly, this is not confirmed yet - the information was leaked from the BBC last week. There was also details regarding ESA claims, however what I am interested in is how people feel about the US company Maximus. At the moment ESA, PIP and DLA is all checked by ATOS whom already have a bad reputation in this country already.

The current Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) is currently dealt with by ATOS, I now find that a company worse than ATOS whom have produced nearly a 12 month backlog in appeals could be bought by Maximus from the US, and their reputation is supposedly worse than ATOS.

The DWP will also be updating their guidance to ATOS and Capita health professionals carrying out PIP assessments.

The next part makes my blood boil....

Changes include telling assessors:

to ignore problems with carrying things in the kitchen but take account of possible self-harm issues when preparing a meal;

to ignore commode use in some circumstances;

that in rare circumstances ‘violent behaviour’ and ‘high suicide risk’ may be relevant to scoring points for needing prompting to undertake journeys;

that typically claimants ‘will not have left their home for several years’ if they are to qualify as being unable to undertake any journey – ignoring the fact that the legal requirement is that you have had the same level of need for just three months and are likely to have it for at least nine more.

All new PIP claims guides have been updated to a 77 page booklet  in the members area changes have been made stating where appropriate, how to deal with them when completing your PIP claim form.

There is other news, in which the FCA has granted licenses - which is even worse.

To our American friends what are your experiences with the company Maximus?

People are always complaining about ATOS when changing over to PIP, this has not effected everyone yet because it goes by your postcode. However, if the above is true I'm sure it will be in papers tomorrow or the day after, along with the other matters.

I know many Americans are watching the UK falling apart, that's how bad it is - we are even on American TV, and non of it is good.

Regards,

Les. 

2

We have no choice in the matter to be honest.

As with government we just have to put up with their decisions. Even the Queen can not change things.

She just signs documents.

X

3

Hi Les

This is a excellent point to debate. I see the relevance to those who are disabled for the purpose of these organisations. My reaction goes to the fundamentals of the situation and my strong distrust of the position the UK is now in.

1. I am no friend to big government. The task of governent is to govern. It is not to manage and even less micromanage the lives of those governed.

2. There are some important things that a civilised government should do such as support those of the governed who are significantly disadvantaged physically or mentally. Government should do this through servants employed for the purpose. Governemnt should never farm these services out to quasi governmental agencies let alone employ commercial agencies to stand in the place of government and employ its own servants to to provide services to a selection of those governed.

Accordingly I believe it is a great fault the agencies exist at all. The services should be supplied by servants employed by the government.

4

The problem here is that there is no satisfactory way of training people with enough personal knowledge and experience to ensure any reliable method of managing this process. While we can except that there ought to be a reliable system, and that such should have been established many years ago before these benefits were set up, there is no way that this can be done while excluding all the subjective conclusions. Therefore whatever company is given the contract for this work it will fail in that the number of successful appeals will demonstrate the obvious flaws. No consideration is being given to the huge amount of stress and uncertainty this presents for the individual.

Government wants to do this cost effectively - how they calculate that is a mystery - which inevitably means using the lowest cost basis. That very fact ensures the system cannot be fair and neither can it ever be seen to be fair. Medical practitioners undergo a minimum of five years study/training followed by more years of on the job experience under supervision and are still green behind the ears when they enter their own surgery and face their patients. Government expects people who have no training or experience other than a brief period with their employer and with a set of rules in front of them, to make staisfactory decisions about people they have never seen before. It is ludicrous.

But what are the alternatives?