Personal Independence Payment Evaluation [Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]
By
Sarah Christison
May 2016
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................. 2 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4 Methodology ......................................................................................... 5 Analysis ................................................................................................. 6 Personal Independence Payments – Current Concerns ....................... 6 Rejection of Proposed Reforms ......................................................... 11 Dissatisfaction with PIP ...................................................................... 15 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 18
References .......................................................................................... 19
Executive Summary This report examines the experiences of individuals currently claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) regarding the application and assessment processes. In addition to these experiences, the report also explores the views PIP claimants hold concerning the changes to the Daily Living Component to PIP which was the subject of consultation between December 2015 and January 2016. This research was conducted on behalf of Dundee Carers Centre, a charity which helps to support carers and people with disabilities.
Key Findings
Issues With Current Administration of PIP The research found that there were a number of areas where participants were experiencing problems with how Personal Independence Payments were currently administered. Issues were raised concerning several areas of the assessment and application process.
Participants felt the assessment criteria failed to take into account mental illnesses.
Concerns were raised regarding the assessors understanding of some health conditions.
Issues were raised concerning accessibility to assessment centres, including a lack of wheelchair access.
Rejection of Reforms It was also found that suggested reforms to the Daily Living Component put forward during the Government consultation were widely rejected by participants in this research. These reforms were considered to be problematic by a majority of participants.
Participants rejected the proposal to introduce a lump sum payment as this suggestion failed to account for the extra costs PIP may be used for, as well as the replacement or maintenance of aids.
The exclusion of non-specialised items was also rejected as participants felt their use of such items was a necessity rather than a choice.
Halving the number of points awarded for aids would have the most widespread effect, impacting upon a majority of individuals qualifying for the Daily Living Component.
Areas for Future Reform While the reforms set out in the aids and appliances consultation were rejected by participants, there were some suggestions regarding how PIP may be adapted to improve the experience and satisfaction of claimants.
The ability to track the progress of a claim. As participants were concerned about the delay in receiving their decision letter, many were in favour of tracking the progress of their claim online.
Participants expressed difficulties completing the forms when applying for PIP. Many felt that a better definition of aids would make this process easier.
Results of this research revealed that many participants felt the assessment criteria did not assess all areas where ongoing costs may be incurred. By further consulting with disabled people about the limitations they face, the true financial impact of a disability may be more deeply understood.
Introduction This report explores the views and experiences of individuals who are currently receiving Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and have undergone the assessment and application process. Personal Independence Payments were introduced as part of a range of welfare reforms which came into effect in 2013. PIP was introduced to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with the purpose of providing people with disabilities financial support to cover any additional costs they face as a result of their disability. PIP is a two tier system consisting of a Daily Living and Mobility component which takes into account difficulties people may face carrying out tasks as a result of their disability. In December 2015, the Department of Work and Pensions began a consultation to gather opinions concerning proposed changes to Personal Independence Payments. These proposed changes came in response to the benefit’s first review (Gray, 2014). While the 2014 Gray review highlighted a wide range of concerns people had experienced while claiming PIP, the government review focused upon concerns raised about how the points for aids and appliances were awarded. These changes would affect people in receipt of the Daily Living Component with a majority of the proposals resulting in a reduction in money awarded to individuals who are awarded PIP based solely on their need to use aids to complete daily tasks. Under the current PIP system, two points are awarded for using an aid with 8 points required to qualify for the benefit. As aids were considered to be a poor indicator of ongoing costs, proposals outlined in this consultation aimed to reduce the award given to those who only qualified for PIP based upon aids only. As of January 2016, 692,065 people were in receipt of Personal Independence Payments with 640,238 of those receiving the Daily Living component at either the normal or enhanced level (DWP Stat-Xplore, 2016). This research also explores other issues raised by Gray (2014) with regards to the application and assessment processes. Issues highlighted in Gray’s (2014) covered problems with the application and assessment process such as the length of the decision making process and the complexity of the PIP2 (How Does Your Disability Affect You?) form. The suggestions made in this review were taken into account when designing this research in order to establish whether the recommendations made in the review had been implemented a year on. Overall, this report aims to examine any problems which PIP claimants are experiencing as part of the application and assessment process. In addition to this, the effectiveness of PIP in achieving the proposed aim of covering the additional living costs which disabled people may face will be evaluated. The effect the proposed reforms on this aim will also be explored in this research.
Methodology This research used a mixed methods approach employing both questionnaires and interviews to gather views and experiences of people claiming PIP. In addition to this, statistical analysis was carried out in order to assess the demographics of people who receive PIP as well as to aid understanding of the wide range of health conditions which people who are receiving PIP experience. In the first stage of this research, online questionnaires were used to collect information from individuals claiming PIP. These questionnaires allowed people to express their opinions about how their assessment and applications were handled as well as incorporating questions which aimed to gauge opinions of the proposed changes to how aids and appliances are scored in relation to the Daily Living component of PIP. Participants were recruited through Dundee Carers Centre as well as other local organisations and charities. The internet was also used with the online questionnaire shared on social media along with discussion forums on disability charity websites. Overall 68 responses were collected. Additional views were collected from the Scottish Disability and Equality Forum who provided their response to the consultation issued by the Department of Work and Pensions. Interviews were carried out in order to collect more in depth information regarding individuals’ views of the PIP system and suggested reforms. Overall nine in depth interviews were carried out. Most participants were recruited from the questionnaire, having left contact details for further involvement in the research and a small number of individuals got in contact through social media or charity forums. Due to the spread of participants throughout the UK, interviews were conducted via Skype, email and telephone. Names have been changed to ensure participant anonymity. Results were derived from the analysis of the information from the questionnaires as well as a qualitative analysis of the survey text responses and interviews. Secondary data analysis was also used by examining the government statistics concerning PIP available from the DWP Stat-Xplore tool. These statistics provide demographic information regarding all PIP claimants correct as of the 31 st of January 2016 (StatXplore, 2016). This provides valuable context for the current research as well as understanding how different groups are represented in the PIP system.
Analysis Personal Independence Payments – Current Concerns This section explores the concerns and issues which participants raised regarding how PIP is currently administered. The issues encountered by people undergoing the application and assessment process for PIP were not part of the consultation process but were disclosed by participants when discussing the experiences they had. These issues took many forms and emerged as recurring themes throughout this research. Each of these issues will be examined in this section.
Assessment Criteria One issue which was consistently raised during this research was that the questions in both the assessments and applications did not adequately assess or understand the health conditions of the individuals. This was evident in both the information collected in the interviews and questionnaires with 82.1% of respondents holding the view that the assessment criteria did not allow them to explain all aspects of their health condition.
Mental Health One of the most common problems disclosed during the course of this research was from people suffering from mental health conditions who felt that the assessment criteria was designed to only account for the physical barriers which people may encounter when completing daily tasks.
Numner of PIP Claimants
PIP Claimants by Disability Category 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0
Disabililty Category
Figure 1: Graph showing proportion of PIP claimants by disability category. Source: DWP Stat-Xplore
Figure 1 shows that psychiatric disorders are the most common type of disability of those claiming PIP. Of all people currently claiming PIP, 33.75% are classed as having a psychiatric disorder while the number of people with psychiatric disorders undergoing reassessment (33.6%) is above average (27.9%) (DWP Stat-Xplore). This means that as of January of 2016, 78,487 out of 233,603 people with psychiatric conditions have undergone reassessment. These figures show that individuals with mental illness make up a large number of people going through the PIP system. This means their needs should be assessed accordingly.
Assessors In addition to participants raising concerns surrounding how adequate the assessment was for people with non-physical or fluctuating health conditions, they also showed concern over the assessor’s knowledge and understanding of medical conditions. Many expressed surprise that the assessor was unfamiliar with their condition and believed that the assessor had not read their medical notes. In some cases participants felt the assessors with a background in midwifery or
physiotherapy were not suitably qualified to understand their condition while others whose assessment were conducted by a GP described themselves as “lucky”.
“While the assessor was perfectly pleasant she had no concept of chronic fatigue syndrome and asked if it was the same as IBS. Quite clearly she had not read any medical reports or my form properly” - Laura
“The midwife I saw had no idea about rheumatoid and osteoarthritis and hemiplegic migraines. When I received the report there were so many mistakes and inaccuracies …A lot of information I had given her had been written down wrongly i.e. IBS symptoms 2 or three days a week when I said that it was 4 or 5 days.” Jane
Concerns were also raised regarding the impact the assessed activities had on people’s health. One participant who works with a disability charity expressed concern that during assessments they had attended, assessors did not take into account whether the individuals being assessed could carry out the task ‘reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner’ as stated in the assessment criteria. Other participants commented that assessors did not appear to take into account how tasks may have to be completed differently due to limitations associated with their disability.
“They seemed to ask questions with an ulterior motive. Like when they asked if I watched TV, they seemed to really be asking if I could sit up for an hour but that’s not how I watch TV, I usually watch it lying down wearing dark glasses.” – Catherine.
“One example; ‘Do you use a shower?’ and I just looked at her and said ‘How?’ Because I’m a bilateral below knee amputee and she said ‘Well you can sit on the floor of the shower’ and I said ‘Fine, how do I get out again?’ ‘Well’ she said ‘Well you put your legs on’. I said ‘How do I get to them?’ and she said, ‘I hadn’t thought about that, I’d never considered that’. It was things like that.” – Tony.
This highlights an important issue with the assessment process, as a failure of the assessors to understand the limitations faced by claimants can lead to a failure to qualify for PIP resulting in both financial and emotional stress.
Access to Centres Research also revealed that there were issues regarding the accessibility of assessment centres. As these centres are for the purpose of assessing people with a range of mobility issues, any problems with access should be taken into account. Analysis of the text based responses to the questionnaire revealed at least three occasions where participants cited that they required wheelchair access to the assessment centre but found it very difficult to arrange their assessment in a centre with disabled access. In addition to this, participants complained about the distances required to walk from parking facilities to the centres as well as accessibility within the centres themselves. Participants not only expressed concern regarding the access problems to the centres but also showed some anger, suggesting that the distances claimants have to walk is a deliberate part of the assessment.
“You have at least a 50m walk from entrance to office… The walk from the entrance to the office in the Dundee centre is held against you for the mobility part of the assessment” - Frank
“Many appointments are initially made at centres miles away from the claimants home address (again tactical), only when pressed will they rearrange an appointment closer to home and accessible. Many are on 2nd or 3rd floors where lifts are out of order making this extremely difficult bit impossible for people with mobility issues (again tactical)” – David
While many participants stated that the centres they attended were accessible, as these assessment centres are for the purpose for catering to people with disabilities, disabled access into buildings should be a basic requirement for all centres. In order to address this issue, the location and configuration of assessment centres should be examined to ensure that they are fully accessible to people with disabilities. Facilities should take into account accessibility issues both inside and outside the
centre, providing adequate parking facilities, power assisted or automatic doors and lift access to upper floors.
Application Forms One issue which was raised in Gray’s (2014) review which also appears in this research was the difficulty in completing the PIP2, “How Your Disability Affects You” form. In the 2014 review, Gray explained that claimants and those who worked with people applying for PIP found the forms complex and time consuming. These same issues were raised by participants in this research as over half (54%) of the respondents to the survey stated that the language used in the applications was not easily understood. In addition to the language used, interview data revealed that many participants struggled with the length of the forms with many seeking help from charities or the internet. Despite forms being considered to be lengthy and complex, many participants felt that they did cover the limitations they had as a result of their disability.
“I found it extremely difficult as I have cfs (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), depression and anxiety – I do not fit neatly into their tick boxes. I had to do a lot of research on the internet to fully understand the best way to fill it in for my circumstances. It took weeks and as a result of the stress involved made my health deteriorate.” - Laura
“I have had two to do so far and I’m waiting for my third. It’s a huge, long detailed arduous process. I have MS and it doesn’t cater for the fluctuation and changes in my condition” – Catherine
This suggests that, as with the assessment criteria, the activities and point descriptors are not adequate in assessing the effect an individual’s disability has on their life. A frequent phrase used to describe the form was “one-size fits all”. While the form is long and detailed in an attempt to account for a range of disabilities, many participants in this research felt that it failed to take into account some of the limitations they were faced with while others found the questions complicated and
misleading. Again the groups who experienced the most problems completing the forms were those with mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions.
Rejection of Proposed Reforms While the aim of this project was to consult PIP claimants on the proposed reforms to Personal Independence Payments, the proposal was withdrawn in March 2016 following a statement in the House of Commons by new Minister for Work and Pensions Stephen Crabbe (Hansard, 2016). Due to this policy change these findings are now of lesser importance but should still be considered. Overall participants largely rejected all of the possible changes which were outlined in the consultation, a finding which was in line with the results of the government’s own consultation where only 11 of the 281 responses indicated a desire for reform but among those, no single option for change was favoured (DWP, 2016). This section explores some of the elements of the proposals put forward in the consultation.
Lump Sum Payments One of the proposals put forward in the consultation was to provide claimants who only qualified for PIP based upon their use of aids with a one off lump sum payment in order to help them purchase the items more quickly. This lump sum would replace a monthly award which is currently issued and would only cover the costs of required aids. This study found that while saving up for aids was a problem experienced by many participants (57.9%), they felt that a one off lump sum payment would not help, with 60% of people expressing problems saving for aids rejecting the lump sum option. One reason for this view may be due to these individuals having extra costs on top of aids, or using aids which have to be maintained or replaced regularly. Further analysis showed that of those participants who struggled to save, 65.9% said they had additional costs such as higher heating bills or petrol costs. These findings correspond with those presented in Scope’s (2014) Priced Out report which states that people with disabilities on average spend £550 per month on costs associated with their disability.
Additional Costs Heating 8%
Transport
14%
4%
Electricity
2%
Prescriptions
6%
Care Cost 8%
Lost Wages 28%
9%
Dietery Requirements Laundry/Water Treatment (Not Covered by NHS)
4% 4%
5%
8%
Specialised Clothing Incontinence Products
Other
Figure 2: Graph showing extra costs experienced by PIP claimants in addition to aids.
Figure 2 shows the extra costs which participants experience as a result of their disability. Participants cited these areas where extra costs incurred with many participants facing two or more of these additional costs. While some of these costs are commonly experienced by people who do not have disabilities, such as transport or utility bills, it is important to understand that these expenses are generally higher for people with disabilities. Findings from this research show that 28% of participants stated that they had additional transport costs. These costs ranged from public transport to parking and petrol and were necessary due to mobility issues. Due to a range of health conditions, choices which may be available to people who are not disabled are removed. This means that cars or taxis are needed for even short journeys or that more expensive parking must be used. Another issue highlighted was increased travel to medical appointments. Some participants not only faced regular journeys to attend medical appointments but also had to attend specialist hospitals or clinics a significant distance away. These appointments therefore come with high transport costs with money spent on petrol, taxis or public transport. Furthermore, addition analysis found that 61.1% who said they had struggled to save had aids which had to be replaced or maintained regularly. These were items such as walking stick tips or batteries for mobility scooters. These findings therefore suggest that aids can have ongoing costs and undermines the view put forward by
the Department of Work and Pensions that they can be considered to be a one-off cost. While the high percentage of participants stating that they struggled to save up for aids suggests that this is a problems which should be addressed; the view that a one off lump sum payment would not help address this implies that there is a failure to understand the full range of costs which a disabled person may face.
Voucher System In addition to the rejection of the lump sum option, the option of vouchers was also largely rejected. Analysis of questionnaire data revealed that 73.8% of participants rejected the idea of vouchers. Further analysis revealed that there was some difference in opinion between people who qualified for PIP based only upon their use of aids who would be affected by the introduction of vouchers and those who scored points in other areas and therefore would continue to receive a monetary award. It was found that 78% of participants who qualify for PIP only on points scored for aids disagreed with the proposal for introducing vouchers compared to 65.8% who were awarded PIP not solely based on aids. This difference becomes more pronounced when examining the difference between numbers who agreed that vouchers should be used with 21.1% of people who did not receive PIP based upon aids only agreeing compared to 5.3% who only qualified based only on aids. This suggests that while almost three quarters of participants rejected the idea of the introduction of vouchers, people who would be affected by the change were more likely to oppose the suggestion. Interview data also showed that vouchers were widely considered to be problematic for PIP claimants with the use of vouchers being commonly described as “stigmatising”, “limiting” and “undignified”. The main issue raised was that the introduction of vouchers could limit choice with the Scottish Disability Equality Forum expressing concern that vouchers may contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ statement that there must be “the freedom to make one’s own choices” (UNCRPD, 2008).
Exclusion of Non-Specialised Items The proposal put forward in the consultation to change the definition of aids to exclude items which are non-specialised or were of little cost were also firmly rejected by participants in this research. It was found that 57.4% of participants believed that there should be no items which claimants should have to purchase themselves with all aids being awarded points in the assessment. While there was some support that freely available aids should be exempt from scoring points (23.5%), this was on the condition that individuals understood that the item was free
and it was made clear how to acquire the item. While a small number of participants (13.3%) believed that some inexpensive items should be exempt, it should be noted that what is considered to be inexpensive or low-cost is relative. This may mean that the exclusion of inexpensive items from the assessment criteria would affect the poorest the most. Overall, participants stated that all items should score points as they act as an indicator of the limitations they face as a result of the disability. While some items may be commonly used by people who are not disabled, this is a choice whereas individuals with disability may depend on these items to complete daily tasks. It was this idea of necessity which was frequently mentioned by participants in this research. Many participants suggested that while non-specialised items may be widely used and easy to purchase, people with certain health conditions do not have a choice whether or not to use these items but rely on them to live as independently as possible. This is significant as one of the aims of Personal Independence Payments is to allow people with disabilities to live as independently as possible. By excluding non-specialist items, PIP claimants’ independence may be limited.
Reducing Points for Aids Overall, all suggestions put forward as part of the consultation were considered to be problematic and were rejected by participants of this research. While most of the suggestions put forward would only be implemented for claimants who qualified for PIP based upon aids and appliances only, the final suggestion which was selected following the consultation, would impact upon claimants who had scored any points for using aids. This proposal would reduce the number of points awarded for using an aid from two to one for activities 5 and 6 (Managing Toilet Needs/Incontinence and Dressing and Undressing). Analysis of data collected in this research showed that 67.6% of participants received some of their points in the Daily Living Component of PIP for using aids or appliances. This figure suggests that the reduction in points awarded for the use of aids would have an impact on a majority of individual’s claiming PIP compared to those affected by the other proposals.
Dissatisfaction with PIP One over-riding theme which emerged throughout this research was that there was general dissatisfaction with the current PIP system. While the reforms suggested in the Aids and Appliances consultation were rejected, participants in this research expressed overall dissatisfaction with how PIP is currently operating. This suggests that the administration of the existing PIP policy should be reviewed.
PIP Satisfaction Scores Number of Participants
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
0 Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Somewhat Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied How satisfied are you with the current PIP system?
Neutral
Figure 3: Graph showing participants satisfaction with the current PIP system. Figure 3 shows that a majority of participants were very dissatisfied with the existing arrangements for PIP with 73.5% of participants dissatisfied to some extent compared to 20.6% to those who were satisfied.
Decision Delays One common issue which was raised regarding how the PIP application and assessment process could be improved was by receiving the decision of whether PIP will be awarded more quickly. This was an issue which was also addressed in Gray’s (2014) review where it was recommended that PIP claimants should be able to track the progress of their claim, suggesting an online portal. As interview participants frequently commented on the delay in receiving a decision and the adverse impact this had on their health, this research explored participants’ attitudes towards the option of tracking their claim online. Results revealed that an online claim tracking service would be welcomed by participants with 79.1% claiming that the ability to track the progress of their claim would be useful. While an online tracker for claimants to check the progress of their claim does not address the issue of a lengthy wait to receive a decision, it may help to reduce anxiety associated with the delay. Many participants described how they experienced a daily struggle waiting for their decision letter to arrive. Participants also spoke of increased stress and anxiety levels waiting for post deliveries which had an adverse effect on their health as expressed in the example below;
“The length of time it’s all taken, it is horrendous. I would love to be able to say that we don’t suffer from stress, that we’re not the slightest bit concerned about what the outcome of this PIP assessment was but I’d be lying. It is always at the back of your mind, every morning when the post comes you think, have we finally got… no, we haven’t yet. Another day goes by. It is a stressful experience going through the waiting process. Having gone through once before having to go to then appealing and going to tribunal, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone because that is a ridiculously long term thing.” – Tony
By introducing a system whereby PIP claimants could track the progress of their claim and be given an estimated decision date, some of the stress and anxiety experienced by claimants during the processing of the claim may be alleviated. In addition to this, the ability for claimants to track their progress online can also reduce pressure on government services. Data presented in the 2014/15 DWP Government Satisfaction Survey found that 49% of PIP claimants did not feel they were kept informed of the progress of their claim with 42% of claimants contacting the DWP to receive a progress update regarding their claim. By allowing participant to receive a progress update online, this may reduce the numbers of people contacting the DWP directly for information on their claim.
Defining Aids Another way in which participants suggested the application process for PIP could be improved would be by defining aids and appliances more clearly. Results of this research showed that 77.3% participants would have liked more information to help them during the application and assessment process. One way in which participants could be better informed when applying for PIP would be to have clear definition of what items are considered to be aids. Analysis of the responses given in this survey revealed that there was a great deal of confusion over what constituted as an aid. A prominent example of this concerned incontinence products which some participants classed as an aid while others considered it to be an additional cost. If individuals were to receive more guidance regarding the definitions of aid, it would allow them to complete the application forms more accurately. This would not only make the process easier for claimants but may ensure that rates of PIP are awarded correctly and reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations. The difficulty in defining aids was acknowledged in the government’s response to the PIP Aids and Appliances Consultation (DWP, 2016:4.12) and a list of aids has been included in the annex. While there is an awareness of the problem and steps have been taken to address it,
developing a more robust definition of aids and appliances would be welcomed by many participants of this research.
Understanding Extra Costs While the aids and compliances consultation put forward proposals which aimed to address problems in assessing the extra costs associated with disabilities, Figure 2, previously discussed, showed that aids cannot be considered to be the only additional costs people with disabilities face. A common theme which emerged throughout this study was that participants felt as if the assessment criteria did not comprehensively account for their additional costs.
“Incontinence is a common factor across a broad range of disabilities and is hugely expensive for the sufferer in terms of water and gas/electricity bills incurred by the extra bathing/laundry to cope with this distressing condition. There is also the additional cost of specialist personal padding and underwear which is no longer available on the NHS and Local Authority funding because of budget cuts to those services in recent years. Yet none of these extra costs are directly assessed for in PIP – toileting needs and incontinence are two very different things, but PIP inappropriately assesses both in the same category and attempts to calculate the extra costs according to how much assistance is required.” – Susan
“The assessment is wholly structured towards people with obvious physical disabilities that can be measured more easily. I can walk but to do so causes me pain and further fatigue, so I would have to get a taxi in certain situations or not go out at all. The money should be there so people with a wide range of disabilities can still have access to and take part in the wider society, and be able to live ‘normal’ lives as much as possible. There appears to be a skewed understanding of disability.” – Laura
Overall, most participants expressed that the current assessment criteria did not adequately measure the extra costs disabled people may experience. While the aids and appliances consultation aimed to address this, the focus on how points are awarded on aids appears to have been misplaced. By working closely with people living with disabilities and gaining a greater understanding of the limitations they face as a result of their health condition, it may be possible to further appreciate the financial impact of a disability and reform the assessment criteria accordingly.
Conclusion Although the results of this research are based upon a relatively small sample size, it gives an insight into some of the issues which individuals who are involved in the PIP assessment process are experiencing. By examining individuals’ views of how the system operates now as well as the proposed reforms, it provides important information regarding issues which may be examined further in order to improve how PIP is administered. Findings of this study support those presented by other charities and organisations who responded to the aids and appliances consultation and whose views are included in the government’s response (DWP, 2016). This research also raises some serious problems which exist regarding the assessment process, particularly with regards to the accessibility of the assessment centres and the understanding of the assessors both of which should be areas of concern. Future research may explore these issues further along with other issues which participants disclosed during the course of this research. Overall, this report aims to provide an oversight of the views and attitudes of PIP claimants concerning both the current system and proposed reforms. As participants are experiencing all aspects of the assessment and application process, they provide a valuable and informed viewpoint regarding the issues which affect them directly. By working with people who have experienced each stage of the process, it provides a deeper understanding of the practical and financial difficulties associated with living with a disability. This understanding is invaluable and should be drawn upon when developing disability benefits further in the future.
References Brawn, E. (2014) Priced Out: Ending the Financial Penalty of Disability by 2020, London: Scope.
Department of Work and Pensions (2015) Consultation on aids and appliances and the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment, London
Department for Work and Pensions (2016) The Government response to the consultation on aids and appliances and the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment, London
Department of Work and Pensions (2016) Stat-Xplore, Available at: https://statxplore.dwp.gov.uk/
Department of Work and Pensions (2016) DWP Claimant Service and Experience Survey 2014/15, London: Department of Work and Pensions.
Gray, P. (2014) An Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment, London.
House of Commons (2016) Publications and Records - Hansard, Available at:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160321/debtext/ 160321-0002.htm#16032113000264
