Probably worth it's own thread on 16:53 - Dec 5 with 454 views | Darth_Koont | Definitely worth its own thread. | |
| |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:12 - Dec 5 with 427 views | factual_blue | Whilst not directly incentivised to 'fail' people, the financial model drives the behaviour of the companies. They want to make a profit. The government expects levels of service, consistency of treatment, a proper amount of time spent on each assessment. To make the profit they expect, the companies really do little more than guess, pushing the resource burden back on to DWP, who devote a substantial resource to processing the appeals. Three quarters of those appeals are overturned, primarily because the private companies go 'quick and dirty' rather than 'get it right first time'. The whole thing is a total embarrassment to the civil servants who have to try to monitor and control the system. They are determined at every turn to give as little information and data as possible about their performance to DWP. I speak with inside knowledge. | |
| |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:20 - Dec 5 with 402 views | Darth_Koont |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:12 - Dec 5 by factual_blue | Whilst not directly incentivised to 'fail' people, the financial model drives the behaviour of the companies. They want to make a profit. The government expects levels of service, consistency of treatment, a proper amount of time spent on each assessment. To make the profit they expect, the companies really do little more than guess, pushing the resource burden back on to DWP, who devote a substantial resource to processing the appeals. Three quarters of those appeals are overturned, primarily because the private companies go 'quick and dirty' rather than 'get it right first time'. The whole thing is a total embarrassment to the civil servants who have to try to monitor and control the system. They are determined at every turn to give as little information and data as possible about their performance to DWP. I speak with inside knowledge. |
Why do they err on the side of "failing" people though? If it's not directly incentivised what is skewing the assessments? Is that by following DWP guidelines that the DWP themselves know will be overturned on appeal more often than not? | |
| |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:26 - Dec 5 with 393 views | bluelagos |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:12 - Dec 5 by factual_blue | Whilst not directly incentivised to 'fail' people, the financial model drives the behaviour of the companies. They want to make a profit. The government expects levels of service, consistency of treatment, a proper amount of time spent on each assessment. To make the profit they expect, the companies really do little more than guess, pushing the resource burden back on to DWP, who devote a substantial resource to processing the appeals. Three quarters of those appeals are overturned, primarily because the private companies go 'quick and dirty' rather than 'get it right first time'. The whole thing is a total embarrassment to the civil servants who have to try to monitor and control the system. They are determined at every turn to give as little information and data as possible about their performance to DWP. I speak with inside knowledge. |
Do the companies like ATOS get more reward if there are more people assessed as not needing the benefits? | |
| |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:31 - Dec 5 with 386 views | jeera |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:12 - Dec 5 by factual_blue | Whilst not directly incentivised to 'fail' people, the financial model drives the behaviour of the companies. They want to make a profit. The government expects levels of service, consistency of treatment, a proper amount of time spent on each assessment. To make the profit they expect, the companies really do little more than guess, pushing the resource burden back on to DWP, who devote a substantial resource to processing the appeals. Three quarters of those appeals are overturned, primarily because the private companies go 'quick and dirty' rather than 'get it right first time'. The whole thing is a total embarrassment to the civil servants who have to try to monitor and control the system. They are determined at every turn to give as little information and data as possible about their performance to DWP. I speak with inside knowledge. |
I asked as a matter of Freedom of Information if the assessors directly or indirectly received any reward in the shape of bonuses or otherwise and received a reply saying they do not. I remain convinced however that there are definite targets for the assessors themselves to prove themselves worthwhile keeping to their bosses; i.e. Maximus - under the guise of the Health Assessment Advisory Service (All those millions upon millions sent to a US company, paid directly to ruin the lives of UK citizens, but don't worry, the health service is safe[!]) and Atos for PIP assessments (All those millions upon millions sent to a French company, paid directly to ruin the lives of UK citizens, but don't worry, the health service is safe[!]) and for the companies themselves to keep the UK government happy by saving it money and helping to manipulate, by default, employment figures. How money is saved though through this approach is anyone's guess. [Post edited 5 Dec 2019 17:32]
| |
| |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:35 - Dec 5 with 379 views | jeera |
Probably worth it's own thread on 17:26 - Dec 5 by bluelagos | Do the companies like ATOS get more reward if there are more people assessed as not needing the benefits? |
The more they turn away the more effective they seem to be. I speak with experience of both types of assessment. I have another approaching as it goes but the last 2 were overturned by the DWP decision makers themselves. Each totally bemused at the assessors' findings. Edit: as well as 2 PIP tribunals overturned. All reports riddled with proven lies. [Post edited 5 Dec 2019 17:37]
| |
| |
| |