Disability benefit assessments, particularly the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), is a topic of concern. Here's a breakdown of the key points:

Shift to Remote Assessments:

There's a significant increase in remote disability benefit assessments, with over 90% being conducted remotely.

Conversely, face-to-face assessments have dropped to very low levels, reaching as low as 2% in some periods.

Concerns About Potential Abuse:

The decline in face-to-face assessments has raised concerns about the potential for increased fraud and abuse within the welfare system.

The reduction in in person assessments makes it harder to verify the validity of some claims.

Impact of the Pandemic:

The shift towards remote assessments was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even though pandemic restrictions have been lifted, the high levels of remote assessments have remained.

Worry From claimants:

Many people claiming benefits are worried that engaging in work support programs, or attempting to return to work, will trigger reassessments of their benefits, and potentially cause them to loose those benefits.

In essence, the move towards remote assessments, while potentially offering convenience, has also generated anxieties about the integrity of the disability benefits system.

The number of face-to-face assessments for disability benefit claims has dropped to a historic low under Labour, sparking concerns that the welfare system is becoming increasingly costly and vulnerable to misuse. Critics argue that the sharp decline in in-person evaluations for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) since the pandemic has made it easier for claims to be approved without thorough verification.

Before COVID-19, over 80% of PIP assessments were conducted in person, but this figure plummeted to below 2% by September last year, with only 1,270 out of 74,000 assessments carried out face-to-face. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who played a key role in reforming welfare policies in the 2010s, warned that Britain’s rising disability and sickness-related expenses are unsustainable.

PIP, which provides financial support of up to £9,500 annually for individuals with disabilities or health conditions, has seen its cost soar since the pandemic. Expenditures are expected to rise from £15 billion in 2019-20 to £36 billion in real terms by the end of the current parliamentary term. Overall, the country’s disability and sickness benefits bill is projected to reach £100 billion per year by 2030.

Sir Iain attributed the increase in claims to the lack of face-to-face assessments, stating that in-person evaluations allow assessors to better gauge a claimant’s condition, particularly in cases involving mobility support. He criticized the decision to reduce these assessments, arguing that physical evaluations help determine whether a claimant’s statements accurately reflect their condition.

Meanwhile, the Government has acknowledged the need to expand in-person assessments. Disability Minister Stephen Timms recently stated that Labour is working to increase capacity for face-to-face evaluations, which have historically been outsourced to private firms. He indicated that the percentage of in-person assessments should rise toward autumn.

Currently, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) guidelines specify that 80% of assessments should be conducted remotely via telephone or video calls, with the remaining 20% taking place in person, including home visits. However, official data indicates that in-person evaluations have consistently remained below this threshold, never exceeding 8% since 2020.

Jean-Andre Prager, a senior fellow at the Policy Exchange think tank, emphasized that remote assessments differ significantly from face-to-face evaluations in terms of what assessors can observe and record. He also pointed out that individuals can request a change in their assessment method, with anxiety being cited as a reason in 15% of such requests.

Additionally, research suggests that younger claimants are less likely to apply for PIP if an in-person assessment is required. Approximately 30% of individuals aged 18-24 and 25% of those aged 25-34 indicated that they would be deterred by face-to-face evaluations, compared to just 4% of applicants aged 65 and older. Similarly, those with psychiatric conditions, anxiety, depression, or sensory impairments were less inclined to apply if they had to attend an in-person assessment.

However, some experts argue that increasing face-to-face assessments may not significantly impact outcomes. A former DWP official suggested that remote assessments could, in some cases, result in more objective—or even stricter—evaluations.

Timms reiterated last month that the Government remains committed to a multi-channel approach to assessments. He assured that future policy decisions would be based on research and analysis to ensure a fair and effective system.