Talk:Work Capability Assessment

About as far from 'neutral point of view' as you can get...

"To further the target death toll the Coalition Government has now announced the removal of the Independent Living Fund, that was set up in order that disabled persons could have a better quality of life, however under the present Welfare Reform Act amendments the Coalition Government have decided that the ILF is not conducive to the desired target death toll."

I'm not a supporter of many of these changes but the allegation that the government has a "target death toll" it is trying to achieve is just bizarre.

I haven't deleted this because the whole article needs a rewrite from a NPOV.

82.26.128.43 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Work Capability Assessment and Atod Healthcare are two distinct things and each deserve an article.Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: The article doesn't say anything about 'target death toll' today and I've never seen that phrase on it; of course it's a silly thing to say and it should have been deleted promptly. The WCA and Atos already have their own separate articles; where Atos is mentioned, it is because the firm was responsible for carrying out WCAs between 2008 and 2015.

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an urgent need to review this entire article

It is not just fact, but fact interspersed with opinion and polemic.

There is much that is wrong with the WCA but this article needs to present facts only, with references and let the readers draw their own conclusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrowlandstuart (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So rewrite it yourself, that's how Wikipedia works! And there are plenty of references - were you actually looking at the WCA page?

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly biased and politically motivated

Whole article needs rewriting, its done from one opinion only, uses some facts taken to forward their own personal view but does not include any unbiased data. Numerous sensationalist statements and accusations without providing evidence or sources. Should be on a tabloid site not here.

Imapersonhere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree quite strongly with the last couple of comments. There was a comment left on 12 April 2015 requesting an urgent review, so I had spent a fair bit of time looking at the content of the article and I put quite a bit of effort in to go through most of the sections. This wikipedia article already contained numerous references written by journalists and published in respected newspapers (and I would suggest broadsheets and compact formats rather than tabloids). There is still some work to be done on this article, but I have to challenge the allegations above, which do not appear to contain an accurate description of the current content, nor of the sort of work that remains to be completed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article is still entirely from one point of view. Where is the data on the number of claimants found fit to work who were previously claiming incapacity benefits? Apart from a statement pointing out that Grant Snapps didn't back up a claim he had there is nothing. There are also numerous statements that are clearly intended not to be impartial, such as "Technically - if the system works properly - the process is supposed to first decide", "A medically-unqualified civil servant - the 'decision maker' - then makes the final decision", "assessors' recommendations are not always followed" statements such as these appear intended to influence the opinion of the reader. You may not like the WCA, and I myself think it needs major improvement, but this article is solely on problems and negative aspects and is in no way impartial.Imapersonhere (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY:

1) The article is most definitely not written entirely from one person's point of view, because I wrote some of it and the rest was written by at least one other person!

2) Who's Grant "Snapps"?

3) Why don't you add the data on fit-for-work rates yourself? It's only actually about 6% by the way. Here's a good source ^[1]

4) The decision-makers have no medical qualifications. That's a simple fact.

5) In late 2013, about 15% of Atos recommendations were not followed. That's from Dr Paul Litchfield's independent review, for Parliament.

6) That the WCA does not work well has been accepted by: the BMA; the Work and Pensions select committee; Atos; and - over the winter of 2013/14 anyway - the DWP itself, as the article shows!

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/welfare-savings-and-incapacity-benefits#.VU-SXKZH3x4

Can We Remove The 'Neutrality Disputed' Header Now Please?

The anonymous disputees have had replies to their comments and some changes have been made to the article. They have not made any changes to the article themselves; if they do not have anything to add, how can they be so sure that the article is written from only one point of view?

Wikipedia rates this article as highly important: the presence of the header might undermine the credibility of the contents, the rigours of the Wikipedia system notwithstanding.

Here's what I suggest: we remove the header after 1 June 15. Anyone object?

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Editing

I've revised the article over the last week or two, by: grouping together points more appropriately; adding more opposing points of view; expanding the article a little. Now almost every citation is from a very reliable source - it includes several from Atos, the DWP or other governmental organisations.

Essentially, because almost everyone now sees the WCA as a failure, it is hard to find anyone who will defend it publicly. In fact, it has hardly been mentioned by the DWP or the media since Atos said it wanted to quit in the spring of 2014.

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrage of criticism

The phrase is a quote from the DWP's 2013 review; it was in a prominent place - the Intro as I recall - and referred to the 'barrage of criticism' the WCA had faced up to that point (when a new reviewer took over).

It's also historically true that the test was heavily criticised from 2011 to 2013 in particular. And 'barrage' is a good analogy!

I'd be happy with a different form of words if it conveyed the same basic meaning, but then why change it?

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing of edits

Dr Greg Wood you have undone several of my edits, could you explain why? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, why have you removed the sourced quote from the Telegraph and why do you think that the rise in the JSA rate for July 2015 is needed, given that it is 1. not relevant to this section (there is no secondary source linking the two) and 2. the rate has since decreased Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas on the use of bold type were good ones and the changes are still there.

I agree that the idea that a lot of people have died because of the WCA has not been proven. However, the section is about the credibility of the test, so beliefs are important (and they have not been disproven either). I know the Tom Chivers article well and he makes a good point, but he didn't establish an alternative position - he pointed out that those particular DWP figures don't explain whether the person lost entitlement and then died or vice versa. (I didn't put the original opening text in, btw, but I was reluctant to fundamentally change it, as I think that would not be in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia).

The specific cases are very relevant - they look at the question of deaths and the WCA in a different way from the statistical approach - and are of great public/media interest.

The JSA count is still rising; it's unemployment that fell in the last batch of data. That is covered in the preceding para in the article, though I wouldn't object if you wanted to rework the bit about the post-May 2015 Conservative attitude to welfare reform at the end of the Economics section.

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will split these disagreements into two new sections if that is ok with you. N.B. I didn't change the specific cases, I did move them into a separate paragraph which may have made it appear as if I had changed them. Also minor point, I'm not sure why you prefer "but" to "however" at the start of a sentence in the economic effectiveness section Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph quote

Dr Greg Wood said above "I agree that the idea that a lot of people have died because of the WCA has not been proven. However, the section is about the credibility of the test, so beliefs are important (and they have not been disproven either). I know the Tom Chivers article well and he makes a good point, but he didn't establish an alternative position - he pointed out that those particular DWP figures don't explain whether the person lost entitlement and then died or vice versa."

However you removed the quote I inserted which said a similar thing to your sentence (after "he pointed out...") Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JSA Count

The absolute count rose by less than 1% according to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33535114, and I can't find a source saying what the rate was (as the labour market may well have expanded). I'm not sure that this single change is statistically significant enough to provide a counterargument to the preceding paragraph, especially looking at the graph in that article. If the rate continued to rise, then it would be a different story Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The JSA claimant count rose in July, Aug and Sept. The ONS and the BBC both have reasonable charts or data showing this. I don't mind if you redo that part about post-May 2015 - I put it in for balance mainly. The JSA bit is also of interest because there is a suspicion that if Maximus are getting through the backlog, they will be moving more people from 'assessment rate" ESA back onto JSA (but it's only a theory...)

Could you link to these charts? I can't find them Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The data was easier to find when it was announced! Here are some pointers:

JSA count

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/14/unemployment-rate-claimant-jobs-statistics_n_8291778.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESA trend

You made this edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Work_Capability_Assessment&diff=prev&oldid=687428236 after I said a citation was needed. However really it needs a secondary source, as raw data can often be misleading.

For example, to me the table on page 4 seems to show a constant rise with a slowdown in 2012, rather than a rise starting in the second half of 2013, especially with the note on page 3 saying that 29% of claimants were still waiting to hear. Someone with an in-depth knowledge of the statistics and the issues around them might indeed be able to explain why this is not the case, or at least be published in a newspaper with its own fact-checking team.

This applies to a lot of the sources in this article as well, it seems like there are a large amount of primary sources. You can look at WP:Synth for more detail on why secondary sources are preferred, as otherwise authors may cherrypick data to suit their own agenda. I don't have the time to go through them individually very quickly, but from your edits (and your username), it seems like you are particularly knowledgeable about this topic so if you have time then I would suggest you improve the article by finding some secondary sources. You may have also missed my comment about the Telegraph article in the section above as I split up the sections.

I would also like to thank you for working constructively with me in order to improve the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overarching issue with the WCA is that few people really understand it - less than 20 in the world, I'd say. That's largely because it is very complicated, but also because it's working in a narrow field. Also, there is very little published about HOW it works in practice, as opposed to its theoretical and legal basis, which is covered in legislative and legal documents to a fair degree.

That's really why the Wikipedia article is so useful, I think - it's probably unique at the moment.

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good reference point for so many things, makes me proud to be an editor and have contributed.

I think you missed my question about the Telegraph reference above, what do you think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry! Just run it past me again.... Dr Greg Wood (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you said "I agree that the idea that a lot of people have died because of the WCA has not been proven. However, the section is about the credibility of the test, so beliefs are important (and they have not been disproven either). I know the Tom Chivers article well and he makes a good point, but he didn't establish an alternative position - he pointed out that those particular DWP figures don't explain whether the person lost entitlement and then died or vice versa."

However you removed the quote I inserted which said a similar thing to your sentence (after "he pointed out...") in the edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Work_Capability_Assessment&diff=next&oldid=687300341

Could you explain why? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put in a direct quote from the cited article, that's fine by me. I think the only tenable view is that we just don't know from these stats which came first - Chivers seems to be assuming that most deaths occurred before the benefits were stopped. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done that now Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chivers' job

Dr Greg Wood, you made an edit inserting Tom Chivers job title "assistant comments editor at the newspaper" with the reasoning "say who Tom Chivers actually is". I am not sure what this adds to the article, are you saying that Chivers' position as comments editor has influenced what he wrote, or that it gives him more (or less) gravitas than an ordinary reporter? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we have to say who he is, or instead say something like "The newspaper said...". I thought about adding something like "who often writes about science matters" but that's a bit long and clumsy and IMO isn't a qualification anyway. "Assistant comments editor" was his job title - he's at Buzzfeed now. I hadn't really thought about it until you mentioned it, but yes, the fact that it was written by a staff writer might be relevant. Without the new bit, the reader will wonder who he is. --Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "The newspaper said" is much better - much more succinct Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suicides ?

Is it reasonable to include the raising number of suicides as reported by the BBC ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34838539

... in areas where the WCA is performed ?

JB --84.186.150.228 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I'm just about to create a new section including that.

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Work Capability Assessment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reassessments for progressive conditions

I took out a line about this, because it is only a soundbite so far, not a formal change in policy. Also, as the section on Maximus shows, this became an issue about six months ago but hit the buffers then, presumably with the new government being formed taking time to get its feet under the desk.

Misleading text in Credibility of the Test section

"In the phase from the inception of the WCA in October 2008 to November 2010, only new claims for ESA were assessed." The article fails to recognise that long term disabled people were forced off Incapacity Benefit and onto applications for ESA.So long term disabled people were tested by the WCA back then not just in the later phase of WCA.

This was the best source I have found so far: http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2010/01/dwp-retreat-on-draconian-work-capability-assessment-test/ Dalek1099 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no major reassessment programme until early 2011; individual reassessment of IB recipients had been taking place since 2000 using the previous test, the PCA, until Oct 2008. I'm not aware of the WCA being used in reassessments before 2011. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too long; can it be split?

The size of this article would make any average reader scream for help, upon seeing the contents box. @Dr Greg Wood:, do you believe that there is an incentive to perhaps spin off some parts of this article? Note WP:SIZERULE -- if it is >100k, definitely [consider] splitting up the article. This is at 130k. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that much bigger than the size you give for consideration to split, and it's broken up into clear sections already. That said, if there was a split, it could be into 1) WCA and 2) The Incapacity Benefit Reassessment Programme.

Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the boxes, etc. It looks better now. I've made some small edits, mainly so the subheadings and pars are smoother. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Most reductions end up being done by giving a good cleanup of the article anyway. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 11:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have split some 57,000 bytes of the article in a new article. I will continue to reform this article. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been split as I suggested, but criticism of the test has been removed from the article by an anonymous internet user. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: extensive re-editing

'My name is not dave' has made major changes to this article over the past two days. It now appears to me to be wholly disjointed and garbled. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/welfare-savings-and-incapacity-benefits#.VU-SXKZH3x4

[1]