DWP ATOS Healthcare and Military Veterans

Re: ATOS HEALTHCARE OR DISABILITY DENIAL FACTORIES
a summary of a research report by Mrs S... distributed as of 25th June 2010

RESEARCH SUMMARY

The full detailed research report is very long and identifies a great deal of information as yet unknown to the DWP. Whilst the report includes evidence from my own experience, which is atypical in any research, this was necessary and, happily, this has been accepted by professionals as a very significant contribution to the detailed evidence within the report. First responses to the report have been very positive. Indeed, this research was originally undertaken as a private initiative to identify evidence of the unacceptable clinical practice by Atos Healthcare medical staff. As a retired health professional, and having established serious cause for concern, I am obliged to reveal my findings to others. It is sincerely hoped that the very disturbing evidence identified within the report will not now be summarily dismissed, because my own unacceptable experience has been included as part of the evidence, and as recently implied by the Clerk to the DWP Select Committee.

This summary is to permit the reader the ability to identify the most serious evidence without the need to access the entire report. Readers are reminded that the DWP Contract with the private contractor Atos Healthcare is 500 pages long in its entirety. Few people have accessed the Contract, which is why Breaches in Contract are widespread, easily identified and ongoing and chronically sick and genuinely disabled people are suffering trauma as the result of this oversight.

Nine months intensive research into the activities of Atos Healthcare has revealed the company involved with the DWP and other government departments at the highest level. Atos founded COHPA, the Commercial Occupational Health Providers Association. At their 2009 AGM and conference, which was a black tie event, the following people were in attendance:

• Dame Carol Black, National Director for Health & Work, HWWB
• Professor Mansel Aylward, Director Unum CPDR & former DWP Chief Medical Advisor
• Greame Henderson, Head of Health & Work DH
• Dr Bill Gunnyeon, DWP Chief Medical Advisor
• Cynthia Atwell, Chair RCN Public Health Forum RCN
• Dr Steve Boorman, Director Corporate Responsibility Royal Mail
• Dr John Osman, Chief Medical Advisor HSE

Successive DWP Chief Medical Advisers are obliged to form a working association with the company, and ATOS Healthcare acknowledge their liaison with government departments with various public awards. To reciprocate, the DWP has recently announced a new award for the company (June 2010).

HISTORY:

1. American firm known as UNUM PROVIDENT (US) are one of the biggest insurance companies in the world.

2. In 2002/03 an American class action lawsuit in California identified UNUM PROVIDENT (US) as running "disability denial factories" and the Judge fined them $31.7 million. The company were ordered to re-investigate countless thousands of other refused claims, something the company has still failed to complete 7 years later.

3. In 2005 American Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi declared: "Unum Provident is an outlaw company. It is a company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion."

4. UNUM PROVIDENT (UK) fund psychosocial disability research at Cardiff University. Prof Mansel Aylward is the head of research at the Unum Provident Centre at Cardiff University and he was the DWP Chief Medical Adviser who recommended this medical evaluation system to the government to reform government care costs for DLA etc. Prof Mansel was instrumental in the methods to be used, imported from America using identical methods as Unum Provident. Unum Provident is banned from several States in the USA. [Since this was first written, it is now believed that Unum and its predecessor and subsidary companies have reached agreement with all the individual States. As part of the settlement Unum's predecessor and subsidiary companies have paid and continue to pay compensation amounting to millons of US dollars. EDITOR] Atos Healthcare have employed the same methods as Unum Provident, hence the vast and growing numbers of chronically sick and genuinely disabled people being betrayed by this system of medical 'evaluation' which, in fact, is a seriously compromised 25 minute basic computer questionnaire, with no allowances for the vast differences within the same identified health condition.

5. ATOS ORIGIN is the parent company of Atos Healthcare, originating from South America and a dominant force in the computer market worldwide. ATOS ORIGIN was awarded the government contract for IT facilities for the 2012 Olympic Games.

ATOS HEALTHCARE:

6. DANGEROUS CONTRACT: This dangerous DWP Contract offers the medical opinion of the AH Disability Analyst as a PRIORITY, which the DWP Decision Makers accept verbatim, so all additional specialist medical opinion of Consultants, offered by the patient/claimant, is totally overlooked. Six weeks training as a AH Disability Analyst does not an expert make(!) - contrary to claims by Atos Healthcare. By definition, a Consultant is an expert in his field of medicine and it is dangerous nonsense to accept a junior doctor's limited clinical experience over the opinion of a clinical expert. The excuse used is that the AH Disability Analyst is "trained in disability" and is not making a diagnosis. Consequently, desperately ill people are now being declared fit for work because they are physically capable of collecting a pen from the floor! Patients,welfare advisors and MPs all presume that specialist medical opinion by a Consultant will be accepted because they are unfamiliar with the details of the Contract. The previous DWP Select Committee have commented about this in their last report, which has also been totally ignored by the DWP, together with ignoring all evidence offered by successive annual reports by the President of the Appeal Tribunals.

7. Medically unqualified DWP Decision Makers, who are administrators with basic skills, now decide the fate of all applicants depending on the conclusions of either a seriously flawed computer tick test and/or AH Disability Analysts who all have limited clinical experience. Hence AH can claim that they are not responsible for the awarding of government care benefits. Their evaluation system causes a crisis for the many victims of this systematic government medical tyranny, and AH escape all responsibility whilst Ministers confidently offer unstinting support. It's no wonder that AH is so confident, with an income of £100 million per year from the DWP. The level of unnecessary distress caused to the victims of this tyranny cannot be quantified but is significant and, clinically, totally unjustified and unacceptable.

8. Without supervision Atos Healthcare staff breach the DWP Contract frequently.

9. The Contract requires specialist medical opinion for several conditions, including all confirmed cases of terminal cancer and muskulo-skeletal disorders etc. This is routinely ignored by AH with devastating consequences, whilst the UK government offer total support for this private company. www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html refers. (Website designer is terminal with brain tumour.)

10. AH doctors do not have access to a patient's detailed medical history at the interview with the patient, as confirmed by AH, so one needs to question why so much detailed medical evidence is requested; which will be totally ignored?

11. Bogus medical reports by AH staff also written about profoundly disabled children.

12. AH doctors are referred to as Disability Analysts, and the company claim that they do not have the same responsibility as a doctor who is responsible for diagnosing and treating patients. The GMC insist that all doctors have a duty of care for anyone they examine for any reason – the company disagree.

13. The Government has ignored successive annual government reports by Judge Robert Martin, as President of the Appeal Tribunals, identifying serious concerns with the medical reports from this contractor. Judge Martin reported concern at overwhelming evidence that DWP Decision Makers consistently refuse to believe the claimants. Tribunal Chairs express constant concerns that medical reports from AH "did not coincide with reality" yet these reported concerns are repeatedly ignored by the DWP.

14. Patients are not acknowledged and are referred to as "customers", which is deeply offensive, as the DWP is this company's customer and not the patients/claimants who rapidly become victims of this system. This is despite the Contract reference to 'patients'. Claimants on Unemployment Benefit may be customers, patients in receipt of sickness and/or disability benefits, or a War Pension that IS NOT a benefit, are quite clearly patients and/or claimants but not "customers".

15. ATOS HEALTHCARE is totally unaccountable for all medical examinations. All usual patient safety networks in place for NHS and private healthcare do not apply and, according to the GMC and the Healthcare Commission, Atos Healthcare, as a company, "…have total immunity from all medical regulation."

16. NO CLINICAL SUPERVISION: Everyone, from Ministers down to the lowest administrator, has been convinced that this evaluation system with this private contractor is closely monitored and so the general public are constantly reassured. In reality, the only monitoring is by basic administrators who invite an opinion from the company, which they then forward to the enquirer. There is no clinical supervision whatsoever. The Correspondence Manager simply repeats verbatim anything advised by the company, and dismisses any concerns re clinical accuracy, as he is totally unqualified to investigate. The Decision Makers simply repeat anything advised by AH staff. This isn't supervision it's adoration, and anything reported by this private company will be accepted by the DWP totally and without challenge. This complete lack of any independent clinical supervision of this company's medical practice is a dangerous precedent and unknown in any other clinical situation.

17. Company employed doctors, both past and present, have expressed concern that most patient health/fitness is assessed using a computer tick test questionnaire, which takes almost all of the 25 minute allocated time with a 'customer' and there is no time for any clinical examination. QED countless thousands of genuine sick and disabled claimants are being refused care benefits and/or increases in War Pensions based on an identified seriously flawed evaluation system.

18. NO REDRESS: Any victim will find no useful redress whatsoever if they attempt to complain. They are advised to make a private complaint to the GMC regarding the named doctor who examined them. When already so ill and/or disabled, this is an unreasonable request and there is evidence to demonstrate that company staff refuse to offer their names to any claimant who has the temerity to request it at interview. Well-documented evidence has confirmed that many claimants have been prevented from recording the medical assessment, or taking notes during the interview with an AH staff member. This is sinister yet the DWP are happy to support any company requirement.

19. REPORT FORM ALTERATION: The previous DWP medical report forms contained a question to permit the investigating doctor to confirm his clinical findings, to identify the %age disability of the patient at examination and to confirm that his findings were in agreement with the medical opinion of the patient's GP. The system worked very well for any patients having a detailed medical examination. The report form has now been changed to prevent any doctor from offering a clinical opinion as to the %age disability demonstrated following examination of the patient, as confirmed by the visiting Consultant, on behalf of the Appeal Tribunal, who carried out a clinical evaluation of myself. A medically unqualified administrator, usually following the opinion of a junior doctor who has failed to carry out any clinical examination, now decides the %age disability of the patient. They simply supervise a flawed computer tick test for the majority of claimants. This is why this medical evaluation system is so very dangerous. No doubt this clinically unacceptable system has saved money, as countless numbers of genuine claimants are refused the help they are entitled to expect and no clinician would have approved this system in its present format. The doctors and representatives of disability organisations, consulted before this system was operational, and who Ministers constantly refer to in their defence of this medical tyranny, are now all challenging the practice and validity of this dangerous and seriously flawed medical evaluation system. (See comments in the detailed main report.)

20. All applicants for state disability benefit, and now also War Pensions, are presumed to be bogus. Guilty until proven innocent is the psychology now employed by Atos Healthcare, with encouragement and full approval from the DWP. I received a letter from a Correspondence Manager from the DWP, covering 6 pages of A4 text, all insisting the virtues of the company and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. He is simply quoting verbatim comments from the company. He is totally unqualified to do anything else.

21. Following a Freedom of Information request the Contract Manager forwarded copies of emails between the Medical Directors of both AH and SPVA – who supervise War Pensions and are presumed to be concerned with the welfare of disabled veterans. Emails confirm overwhelming SPVA support for the MD of Atos Healthcare, and all letters written to me were first forwarded to the MD at AH for prior approval before being sent to me – in the hope that the SPVA were not causing any problems for the company! The SPVA MD demonstrates loyalty for the private contractor and not the veterans but, in his defence, he claimed that AH were unwilling to investigate my concerns without his intervention. I had been in correspondence with AH for 9 months before the SPVA were informed, despite the Contract requiring AH to advise the authority of any complaint. They didn't and, really, why should they? Without supervision this private contractor can do anything and that doesn't necessarily include abiding by the Contract, not least because most people are totally unfamiliar with the details of the DWP Contract with AH.

22. The Contract requires AH to respond to all enquiries within 2 days but they don't, AH are required to advise the Authority of any patient/claimant complaint but they don't, the Contract prevents terminally ill patients from attending DWP Pathway meetings, so why are they forced to attend against DWP threats of the removal of benefit if they refuse, and why do AH ignore the Contract requirement that provides a Specialist medical opinion for all cases of terminal cancer, musculo-skeletal disorders etc? AH breach the Contract at will because there is no clinical supervision and no one to prevent this happening.

23. Dr Bill Gunnyeon, the new DWP Chief Medical Advisor, together with Dr Steve Boorman for Royal Mail and Cynthia Atwell for the RCN were all distinguished guests of Atos Healthcare at the COHPA AGM in Sept 2009. There is a mutual appreciation society going on between Government Departments and Atos Healthcare at the highest level, and Atos Healthcare demonstrates that they are untouchable, as confirmed by all research evidence.

24. To date, the GMC have failed to successfully investigate any doctor from AH usually because "people become discouraged because a GMC investigation can take up to three years to complete". Hence, the government's claims that vulnerable people will be protected are a total nonsense.

25. The MD of Atos Healthcare refuses to personally respond to any correspondence because the GMC will investigate anything in writing - as confirmed in emails to MD at SPVA. The MD's opinion is routinely forwarded via the National Customer Relations Manager.

CONCLUSIONS:

All patients/claimants are in a no win situation.

Atos Healthcare appears to be successfully running "disability denial factories" in the UK, funded by the DWP, and identical to those used in America. There is nothing in place to stop them and all evidence that challenges AH medical report or conclusions will be resisted. Patients/claimants have no protection. There are countless numbers of distressing stories available of genuine patients being traumatised following a visit to these government funded medical assessment centres, where no actual medical evaluation will be undertaken other than a seriously flawed computerised tick test.

The permitted activities of this private contractor are dangerous and, without medical supervision, the chronically sick and disabled people of this nation remain in jeopardy. It's not enough that these victims endure such shocking treatment by this contractor but they are also placed under intolerable additional pressure, with the constant threat that their financial support will be removed, without warning, because the DWP want to save cash and the sick and disabled people of this country make very easy targets. The very detailed research report has been accepted by Professor Harrington as evidence for his independent inquiry, to be published in December.

      "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
                                      Edmund Burke

Mrs S... Retired health professional, War Pensioner

23rd August 2010

POST SCRIPT:

Since this research was completed additional information has been brought to my attention. In a letter to a dying man, the manager of the DWP CMMS department has confirmed in writing that the DWP never have audited/monitored the contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare, contrary to the claims of successive Ministers, who constantly reassure the House and the British public. In her letter to Mr B..., Hilary Brierley confirmed that: "...the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare’s compliance with its contractual obligations." Someone, somewhere should explain to this woman the difference between a contractual right and a contractual obligation when dealing with a £100million government contract. The only monitoring undertaken by the DWP and Atos Healthcare is to check the paperwork and the targets. There is no clinical evaluation of these medical reports or the doctors producing them.

QED: It has now been confirmed that this government contract with Atos Origin Medical Services has never been monitored/audited by the DWP.

In loving memory of Eileen Nearne - a WW11 hero betrayed by her country. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313618/WW11-spy-Eileen-Nearne-died-penniless-British-pension-halted.html refers.

22nd September 2010

POST SCRIPT (2): THE HARRINGTON REPORT

An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment, headed by Professor Malcolm Harrington, was published on 23rd November 2010 and used my main research report as a contribution to the evidence for the review. The Professor confirmed unacceptable and limited activity by the Decision Makers, who fail to consider all presented medical evidence, and confirm anything presented by an Atos Healthcare assessment. This is in breach of the contract as exposed in this full research report, originally completed in June 2010. Decision Makers are not qualified to do anything else. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf

POST SCRIPT (3): UNUM PROVIDENT

In a feature article by Jonathan Rutherford, it is confirmed that the former DWP Chief Medical Advisor, Professor Mansel Aylward, was known to Unum as far back as 1994 and is now the Director of the Unum Centre at Cardiff University, funded by Unum Insurance. www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/rutherford07.html

11th August 2011

Detailed references can be found in the main report at: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html UNUM PROVIDENT now trading as UNUM Insurance. UNUM Provident Insurance were banned from 15 States in USA and 6 countries worldwide until 2008, so why is this dangerous company used by DWP as consultants for welfare reform in the UK?

Atos Healthcare's parent company is ATOS ORIGIN who benefit from several lucrative government contracts.....including the IT contract for the 2012 Olympic Games.

RESEARCH CAVEAT:

It is believed that Unum Insurance, or their predecessor or subsidiary companies, are no longer banned from operating in the US. This is since the company agreed to financial settlements with the DoH of all states, and since the company agreed to pay significant compensation. It is not known whether Unum Insurance, or their predecessor or subsidiary companies, in particular Unum Provident Insurance, has agreed liability. Unum Insurance are still processing compensation claims years later. There is anecdotal evidence that the processing of some of the claims are taking a very long time but, to date, there is no evidence to confirm that there is a Unum policy to delay compensation payments. Given that the reputation of any Unum predecessor or subsidiary company was tainted by the involvement, including the "a priori" company name of "the Unum Provident Insurance", it is reasonable to suppose that the change of name to "Unum Insurance" is an attempt to distance the current Unum operations from the past. It is believed that Unum feel that they are now in a position to be able to deny past culpability. Unum claim, in the US, that they have changed procedures. It is believed Unum are funding large marketing campaigns in their target markets. Some believe that Unum are using their influence to censor and shut down websites which continue to publish past activities of Unum and its predecessor or subsidiary companies. A number of these websites have been set up by the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. I leave it to you and history to judge how much the attitude of Unum has changed. All wish that Unum has truly changed. Unum could demonstrate this if they seek dialogue with their distractors and ask the website publisher to amend any published statements that they disagree with. Unfortunately Unum appears, to many, to be attempting to rewrite history and is attempting to cleanse the knowledge of a discreditable past. The reasons for the removal of a BBC transcript (republished here www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html#unumbbc), from 2007, which identified Unum Provident Insurance as a discredited corporate insurance giant, are, at this time, unknown.

25th August 2011

CONFIDENTIAL RESEARCH REPORT

Re: ATOS HEALTHCARE

Without Prejudice

DEDICATION:

This research report is dedicated to the author and designer of www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html, whose quality website encouraged me to conduct further detailed research. Contact via email and telephone confirmed that this designer undertook this work whilst diagnosed with a terminal and inoperable primary brain tumour, knowing that he probably had less than 12 months to live. His courage, concern for others and remarkable strength of character are indeed humbling to behold and it was my great privilege to have contact with this very remarkable man and courageous man.

REPORT:

Please be advised that this report is the result of 9 months research and was written over a period of time, between February and June 2010 as health permitted, hence various references in date order throughout the text. I am most grateful for the contents of the annual government reports, written by His Honour Judge Robert Martin, and I hope the detailed information contained within this report may be considered to be of some assistance to his work and the work of other Tribunal Chambers. This research was undertaken voluntarily, as a private initiative, and was not commissioned or funded in any way.

1. INTRODUCTION: I am a retired health professional and a War Pensioner, medically discharged from service in 1984. I originally trained in the NHS as a cardiac technician from 1970-72 and, when qualified, I opened and ran the cardiac care department at the new Lister Hospital, in Stevenage, from 1972-78. I then joined the RAF Medical Service in 1978, where I was further trained in clinical Neurology and Audiometry, and I qualified as a Physiological Measurements Technician at RAF Wroughton. Once qualified, I was posted to the RAF Central Medical Establishment in London, where I worked for the head of RAF Medicine, Air Vice Marshall Brian Kelly, together with other visiting consultants, until my medical discharge in 1984.

   In 1983 there was a planned national rail strike and I was unable to travel to my unit. Therefore, for the duration of the rail strike, I was temporarily detached to the Institute of Aviation Medicine, at RAF Farnborough, Hants, where I lived in married quarters and where my husband was stationed. The medical research at the Institute was classified and I am, therefore, not at liberty to disclose in detail how I contracted my illness. Suffice to say that, whilst on detachment, I contracted a very rare virus infection, which subsequently manifested itself as a post viral Polyarthritis that required treatment at RAF(H) Halton on three separate occasions.

   QED: The enforced detachment to the Institute, due to a national rail strike, ended my medical career.

2. VOLUNTARY WORK: Since I lost my medical career I have involved myself with voluntary work, at both local and national level, and I have been the Director of three charities. Many years ago I co-founded the Camberley Branch of Arthritis Care and was short-listed for a national award for my work with young people with the condition. Having moved to Cambridgeshire, I was a member of the Executive Board of my local district theatre, I was the co-signature for the charity chequebook and I held the office of Honorary Secretary to the Executive Board. In 2003 I marketed the theatre for its silver anniversary season, which became the most successful season on record with all shows sold out.

   I was also mentor to large numbers of performing arts students over the years with the Special Education Department, Cambridgeshire, refering complex needs teenagers to me for work experience with very positive results. It was my failing health that obliged me to leave the theatre community in 2004. Since leaving the theatre I have helped people with writing a variety of letters and documents, have re-written three dissertations for students and continue to help others to write formal reports. Quite clearly, self-pity is not my style.

   My integrity has never before been in question until an unhappy meeting with a young health professional, in the employ of Atos Healthcare, in December 2008. It is safe to presume that I was incensed when I learned that my integrity had been doubted. Despite increasing pain and disabilities over the years, as predicted at my medical discharge, I remain fiercely independent. I prefer to be kept busy and I have never felt the need to "adopt a disabled lifestyle" as reported in December 2008 in a totally bogus medical report by the Atos Healthcare "disability analyst." Integrity and honour remain the values I live by. Given my shocking and disturbing experience with a young doctor from Atos Healthcare, and following additional detailed research, I am obliged to expose my findings about this totally unacceptable government funded medical agency.

3. BOGUS MEDICAL REPORT: It is totally unacceptable to me to have my integrity challenged by the actions of a young man who knowingly wrote a bogus medical report, claiming to have conducted a detailed medical examination when, in reality, no medical examination whatsoever took place. Due to this young man's dishonesty, my War Pension was not only not increased but it was changed from an interim award to a FINAL award, which means no further deterioration claims will be considered and it was presumed that both my doctor and I had made false statements for my ultimate financial gain. This was totally unacceptable to me and deeply offensive to my doctor.

   I have invested a great deal of time, when physically well enough to undertake research, in order to confirm my suspicions regarding Atos Healthcare. Given that my findings may potentially impact on the welfare of countless thousands of other genuinely sick or disabled people, I decided to bring this research evidence to the attention of someone in authority.

4. BOGUS REPORTING IMPACTS ON CHILDREN: Prior to revealing evidence regarding my own personal experience, and that of other disabled adults, I believe I should report my recent experience on behalf of a profoundly disabled 5-year-old little boy, who is the son of a friend. My friends, who have minimal income, applied for DLA for their son to allow them access to a Motability car to permit easier transport. The little boy was born with a profound and very obvious physical disability in that both his legs are very nearly at right angles to his torso. Clearly, the boy is physically unable to walk, run or climb stairs and this situation can never improve. It is certainly one of the most severe disabilities I have witnessed in childhood, not unlike some of those afflicted with the Thalidomide tragedy.

   The DLA application forms required evidence as to why the child was physically unable to climb a flight of stairs and his parents offered detailed evidence, supported by their GP and Consultant Paediatrician. However, the medical report provided by a Physiotherapist from Atos Healthcare, on behalf of the DWP, concluded that the reason why the boy was unable to climb stairs could be attributed to "frequent ear infections" and her report totally failed to mention the child's very obvious and profound physical disability. Consequently, the family's request for DLA was initially rejected, with the Consultant Paediatrician's report being ignored. Needless to say, a strongly worded observational support letter from myself, as a retired health professional, did it seems help to persuade the Appeal Tribunal to disregard the totally bogus Physiotherapist's report and, happily, the family now have access to a Motability car that has greatly improved their quality of family life.

5. CUSTOMER: What is of concern must be what possible pressure was brought to bear to permit a Physiotherapist to compromise her oath of office so seriously to instigate such a bogus medical report? One obvious cause is the employer i.e. Atos Healthcare. The Government is this Contractor's principal health care "customer" and the DWP Contract is in place to justify these measures, given that the Government's priority is to remove as many people as possible from government funded help in order to reduce care costs.

6. TERMINAL ILLNESS: Another very, very disturbing example of the Contractor's abuse of power can be found at a website identified as: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html, which was designed by a very courageous web designer who is terminally ill with an inoperable primary brain tumour. Despite the diagnosis and very, very frail health, which included the onset of Grand Mal epileptic fits that could not be predicted, this victim of the DWP was still required to travel to distant meetings via public transport, to attend Pathway Meetings, under threat of losing benefit if he failed to attend. He was required to be part of meetings to discuss his possible future return to work - when he had been given a terminal prognosis with less than 12 months to live.

   Clearly, the indoctrination of DWP staff is very high calibre given the callous and uncaring nature of their approach, even to the terminally ill. This is deeply disturbing and another example of how the DWP and Atos Healthcare choose which parts of the government Contract to adhere to, and which parts to totally ignore. The Contract clearly identifies claimants with a confirmed terminal illness as being EXEMPT from this scrutiny, yet the author of this website was repeatedly threatened by the DWP with losing his benefit if he refused to attend. The consequences of such threats, together with the physical effort employed and the anxiety created, by risking public transport when so frail and suffering with frequent GM fits, can only be imagined and, in my clinical opinion, is a form of medical abuse by the DWP and this Contractor.

7. TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE: Further research has identified the fact that the medical examinations conducted by Atos Healthcare staff have no public accountability for medical practise. Safeguards are in place for all patients in the NHS, and the private medical sectors, to protect anyone who may suffer at the hands of an unacceptable medical professional. However, all these agencies have confirmed that the medical staff from Atos Healthcare "are not in our remit" and, apart from the DWP Medical Services Contract Management Team, who are administrators with no medical qualifications, there is no public protection for the victims of Atos Healthcare medical staff, despite protests from the Service Pensions and Veterans Agency (SPVA) who try to suggest otherwise.

   Atos Healthcare describe their doctors as "disability analysts" whose responsibility is to the company and not to the sick or disabled people they meet in the course of their work. Consequently, the sick and disabled victims examined by company staff are not considered to be patients or clients but 'customers' and the disabled members of the public, examined by the medical staff from this company, have no safeguards in place and are, therefore, vulnerable and open to exploitation until someone manages to expose this dangerous situation.

8. DISABILITY DENIAL FACTORIES: Detailed research has confirmed that this medical assessment system, employed by Atos Healthcare, is based upon a successful and very similar medical assessment system in place in America, as demonstrated by an insurance company identified as UnumProvident (US). This company, in a California class action lawsuit in 2002/03, was identified by the Judge as operating "disability denial factories" and fined US$31.7 million.

   Nevertheless, the former Chief Medical Advisor to the UK government, Professor Mansel Aylward, was instrumental in advising the UK government to set up these medical assessment centres based on the model in America, and he is still funded by the same American company used in his example, with his research centre in Wales funded by UnumProvident (UK). Indeed, his research centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research is based at Cardiff University and Professor Aylward is the Director at the "UnumProvident Centre." Professor Aylward was also instrumental in how the new Welfare Reform Act was to be implemented by the DWP. UnumProvident (US) is actually banned from operating in several states in America. (www.cardiff.ac.uk/medic/contractsandpeople/a/aylward-mansel-prof-overview-new.html) (www.justice2008.co.uk/MedicalServices.aspx)

9. MEDICAL EVIDENCE RESISTED: Further research has revealed testimony from doctors working for the company employed as disability analysts, as well as former staff doctors who resigned from Atos Healthcare, as they were not prepared to compromise medical ethics for a profit margin to the distinct disadvantage of the sick and disabled claimants they were expected to examine. Their evidence confirms frequent staff meetings wanting details of average time taken for patient reviews, and writing the reports, but the company never discussed patient/claimant welfare. Doctors at Atos Healthcare are rewarded by the quantity of medical assessments undertaken, with some doctors earning as much as £5,000 per WEEK.

   In his annual report as President of the Appeal Tribunals, released in July 2008, Judge Robert Martin revealed that the numbers of appeals had increased, from 217,000 per year to 229,000. Indeed, Judge Martin was insistent about the fact that the "same problems and errors are repeated year after year, with no sign that anyone takes any notice of feedback from Tribunals". In relation to DLA, out of a sample of 365 successful appeals, Atos Healthcare supplied medical evidence in 302 cases. Hence, the Contractor conducts most disputed medical reports.

   Tribunal Chairs criticised medical reports from Atos that "did not coincide with reality" and considered that it was the fact that Tribunals took time to question appellants about their history, care and mobility needs which led them to a different conclusion from the decision makers. In relation to the personal capability assessment of incapacity for work, Tribunal Chairs told the President that a major problem was an even greater likelihood than with other benefits for both examining doctors and decision makers to refuse to believe evidence given by the claimant.

   So, the medical evidence from the claimant, their GP and medical consultants, who know the claimant well and have monitored and treated their health over time, can be resisted when their evidence is accepted as expert testimony in every court in the land. This is how the Government will dramatically reduce care costs. Why is this permitted?

   The continuing frustration with the total failure of the DWP and ATOS Healthcare to produce consistently reliable evidence and decisions shines out in Judge Martin's report, and there was a likelihood that the situation would get worse in the coming months and years. And so it did. The new report by Citizens Advice Scotland has confirmed that 69% of people claiming the new ESA benefit are actually refused this help and the medical assessment by Atos Healthcare is totally unworkable.

   Of course, the DWP continues to dismiss all evidence against this company as politicians wax lyrically about Atos Healthcare's 'medical expertise' used as a priority for assessments claiming that this assessment is one that has "...been developed in partnership with a number of organisations, including those representing disabled people."

   Dr Jake Branton explained more: "Atos actively discourages its doctors from calling GPs or requesting more information because it takes too much time. Doctors are only allocated 25 minutes per claimant and, unfortunately, most of each 25 minute appointment is taken up with the questionnaire from Atos, leaving little more than a couple of minutes for physical checks in most cases. There is simply not enough time to verify a patient's claim."

   Dr Chris Johnstone is a GP in Paisley whose initial work helped to shape ESA Policy and he is one of the experts referred to, by various politicians, as they attempt to justify this dangerously inadequate medical assessment process from this private company. He says: "I have no problem with a rigorous medical assessment done in a supportive fashion. But I think if you have a slipshod one done, as it appears anecdotally, that's unfair for the people going through the system. It feels like it is done inappropriately and it's almost being done to save money rather than look after people."

   In a written reply to the designer of this website, Atos Healthcare confirmed that the "...examining practitioner would not have access to a customer's NHS medical patient history." ( www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html) ( www.sunderlandwelfareaction.wordpress.com/tag/medical-assessments) ( www.judiciary.gov.uj/docs/senior-president-report.pdf) ( www.dwpexamination.wordpress.com) ( www.cas.org.uk) (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/313/31305.htm) (BBC Scotland Social Affairs report, 19th Jan 2010 refers)

10. VICTIMS: It is indeed regrettable that some dishonest people undoubtedly played the system to obtain benefits to which they are not entitled. However, a War Pension is not a benefit, and I believe that the reason the administration of War Pensions was altered in 2005 was to place all older veterans at a disadvantage, to resist funding future medical deterioration claims, and to place us all as potential victims of this government medical tyranny in an effort to greatly reduce increasing government care costs for older disabled veterans.

    Atos Healthcare was awarded the latest DWP Contract in September 2005.

    Make no mistake about it, as I do believe that all sick and disabled people, who must endure a medical by this Contractor, are indeed potential victims. What is even more sinister is that this so called medical assessment system was introduced under a veil of fairness, and the British public fell for the rhetoric amidst massive press and media coverage. Yet the grossly exaggerated press and media hysteria totally overlooked evidence that identified bogus DWP claims number no more than 2% of the entire DWP annual budget but, under this new system, all long term sick and disabled people are treated as suspected criminals and we do appear to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. In reality, review medical 'examinations' with this Contractor are a harrowing and distressing experience and it's time this was exposed as the unacceptable face of government cost cutting.

11. COSTS: Very conveniently for the Government, a system that employs medical staff who willingly agree to create dubious medical reports will no doubt reduce government care costs in the short term. However, given the growing annual costs of the Appeal Tribunals service, one needs to wonder just how much saving is identified when the costs of using this Contractor are already in excess of £80 million per annum, plus the costs of the increasing numbers of Appeal Tribunals?

    The distress and subsequent trauma suffered by the victims of this Contractor, whose only 'crime' is to invite financial support when sick or disabled, remains cause for concern but impossible to quantify.

12. GMC CONCERNS: The General Medical Council is also unhappy with reported concerns regarding increasing numbers of dubious medical reports, impacting on the lives of thousands, which detract from the reputation of the medical profession that has always been held with such high esteem within the UK. At least some of the medical staff employed by this Contractor clearly do abuse the public trust, without fear of reprimand.

    However, the GMC have confirmed that, as a company, Atos Healthcare "...have total immunity from medical regulation." Indeed, the Healthcare Commission confirm that doctors carrying out work for government departments are specifically exempt from regulation under The Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001 and Care Standards Act 2000. This surely permits unacceptable medical reports to be presented, without fear of reprimand, it is cause for alarm and is something that the British public do not yet know and may explain a great deal. I am wondering if the Justices in the Appeal Tribunals circuit are also aware of this shocking reality?

    The GMC have assured me that they would still wish to be advised of any named doctor who breaches patient trust, and they will be sent details of my experience after I have received the Appeal decision. The GMC have also confirmed that all doctors remain subject to good medical practice, regardless of whether they are the registered health care professional for a patient or a disability analyst representing a private company, contrary to the claims from Atos Healthcare.

    Even enquiries with the Independent Healthcare Advisory Service has confirmed that Atos Healthcare is not subscribed to their service either and the only agency that this Contractor does appear to be answerable to is the DWP, who continue to demonstrate that, as administrators, their supervision is really quite meaningless. (www.indepenthealthcare.org.uk, www.gmc.org.uk )

13. UNREALISTIC: The total lack of public accountability of Atos Healthcare, as confirmed in the government Contract that covers 500 pages, means that the only redress available is for victims of this company to report named doctors to the GMC or to report other health professionals, such as Physiotherapists, to their professional body.

    This total lack of public accountability is dangerous nonsense and few people, who are themselves already sick and/or disabled, would have the strength, the desire or the courage to undertake such a massive and unrealistic expectation, especially when it has already been established that a GMC investigation can take up to three years to complete.

    This unrealistic expectation permits the Contractor a distinct advantage as confirmed by the Contract, which guarantees the opportunity for the sick and disabled people of this nation to become nothing more than government statistics. This is the danger of a welfare system, in contract with a private company, that now holds the balance sheet to be of much greater importance than the welfare needs of our sick and disabled people.

14. POWER & AUTHORITY: Now that the UK government is using finance as the only priority for welfare, instead of the welfare needs of the sick and chronically disabled people who depend on this service, it is guaranteed that countless numbers of vulnerable people will suffer whilst Atos Healthcare remain in a singular position of power and authority.

    The usual common courtesies, respect and human kindness expected from all health professionals towards their patients - or claimants - have been exchanged for a balance sheet. Human Rights are displaced and the need for compassion, and especially the dignity of the patient/claimant, is totally disregarded.

    The sick, the disabled and now even the dying are victims of this systematic medical abuse of power, and intimidation and bullying tactics are used to silence anyone who attempts to expose this government funded medical tyranny. Indeed, in the Appeal Tribunals Report of 2009, it is confirmed, "...appeals are twice as likely to be successful if the applicant appears at the appeal compared to when they don't." So, this statement doesn't appear to hold out too much hope for those of us who are too ill, in too much pain or too disabled to risk travel, which places the most profoundly sick and disabled people at a distinct disadvantage, including older War Pensioners. Can this really be considered to be justice?

15. INCREASING DISABILITY: The SPVA administer my pension and, until recently, I had not been in touch with the SPVA for over 20 years. As my health deteriorated, and the physical disabilities dramatically increased over time, I requested a review of my War Pension and, in 2006, a visiting doctor - freelance and former RAF doctor - conducted a very thorough medical examination in my home, and in the presence of a chaperone, and confirmed the significant physical deterioration. My pension was then increased from a 20% disability to a 60% disability as an Interim award, which accepts that the diagnosed condition may deteriorate further.

    In 2006 the experienced visiting doctor strongly advised me to claim again within 12 months due to the expected and continued "savage onslaught" of my condition. His detailed medical report confirmed all statements offered by myself and my GP as being true, and my GP's assessment of my disability levels as being accurate.

    QED: my doctor and I have no need to make bogus deterioration claims.

16. DETERIORATION: As predicted at the 2006 medical examination, over time my condition continued to deteriorate significantly but much faster than in previous years. Due to this serious and painful deterioration, and with the full support of my doctor, in August 2008 I requested another medical review of my pension, as advised by the previous visiting doctor in 2006.

    For the 2006 review my GP had suggested that I presented as being 60% disabled for daily living. The subsequent medical review report confirmed my GP's opinion, in a designated box within the printed report form, and my pension was increased to acknowledge the serious increase in disability.

    For the 2008 review it was my GP's opinion that I presented as being 80% disabled for daily living and at times, when I am confined to the sofa for days, I am 100% disabled due to the serious and more rapid deterioration in my diagnosed condition, which she felt was to be expected. It had been necessary to increase analgesics to include Diamorphine for pain control, and I was confined to the sofa for days, usually every week, due to the increase in pain and disabilities that now also seriously compromised my entire spine and chest wall, which can impact on breathing.

    Little did I realise that my integrity was to be challenged for no other reason than the fact that my disabilities had continued to increase, but the Government did not wish to fund the deterioration. Funding is now the only priority for the UK Government and the obvious increasing disabilities of a veteran will be resisted to prevent increases in care costs.

17. INTIMIDATION: Subsequently, a totally unacceptable young man, claiming to be a doctor from Atos Healthcare, eventually visited me at home in December 2008. However, due to unforeseen circumstances on the day, it wasn't possible to have a chaperone present for this review medical, and I now wonder if the young doctor's conduct would have been different if there had been another witness present?

    Indeed, the young man claimed to be a visiting doctor whilst steadfastly refusing to offer any acceptable ID.

    The detailed documents provided for the Appeal Tribunal confirm that this young man arrived at my home and;

    • refused to provide any ID apart from a name badge,
    • ignored all good medical practice,
    • compromised medical ethics,
    • treated me with utter contempt,
    • silenced me with a dismissive wave of his hand,
    • insisted that I was not "permitted" to speak other than to offer answers to his questions,
    • resisted eye contact and attempted to intimidate,
    • sniggered at me, and laughed in my face,
    • claimed to have completed a physical examination on my person when no examination had taken place,
    • produced a medical report that was a total work of fiction and copied, verbatim, extracts of the medical evidence from parts of the previous 2006 detailed medical examination.

18. BOGUS CLAIM: For the 2008 medical review, all the provided and very detailed medical evidence was resisted, and the fact that I re-submitted a claim 18 months after the previous pension increase appears to have alluded that I was making a bogus claim, despite the fact that I have a confirmed diagnosis, which presumes on-going and increasing physical deterioration over time.

    To this effect the SPVA's decision, following the totally false 2008 medical report, not only limited my pension to remain at a 60% disability but it was changed from an Interim award that allows for further deterioration claims, to a FINAL assessment that effectively prevents any further deterioration claim and risks forfeiture of pension if pursued.

    Yet this conclusion was for a confirmed diagnosis of a medical condition that can only continue to deteriorate over time. This is another example of the dangers of administrators making decisions that they are medically unqualified to make, and presumes that a rapid health deterioration must be bogus.

19. SPECIALIST: When I reported my concerns to my GP I was advised that she had: "...lost count of the numbers of my patients who have been broken following a meeting with a staff member from this Company." I then decided to challenge the shocking and bogus medical report and finally, 20 months after my initial application, the Appeal Tribunal medical was eventually conducted on 29th April 2010 at my home by a visiting Consultant Rheumatologist, who was not in the employ of Atos Healthcare.

20. RAFA REP: However, I am constantly being warned by my RAFA Representative that my pension can be reduced or removed, thus adding to the significant stress and distress I have endured since this all began.

    Why must any veteran be so intimidated by their own Representative when a previous detailed medical examination had confirmed my failing health, increasing disabilities and predicted that the physical deterioration would rapidly continue over time?

    This supports Justices' claims that there is an alarming resistance to believing claimants, which now also includes Representatives of the disabled veterans of this country. I am, therefore, not confident regarding any future decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which will be attended by my RAFA Representative, as I am not well enough to agree to attend an Appeal Tribunal at some future date, to be held in some distant city, when my physical health can vary hour to hour and I am housebound a lot of the time. (Dec '09 - May'10)

21. SUPPORT OR INCREASED STRESS: Indeed, it seems that my RAFA Representative is reluctant to believe me as the only advice he gives me is to repeat that, if my claim is bogus, I could lose my pension (after 25 years?) - which funds my home - and this from a man whom I've never met and is meant to be supporting me. I have no doubt that this is due to the 2008 totally bogus report from the Atos Healthcare doctor that claimed I had "adopted a disabled life style."

    Despite the very detailed medical evidence provided for the Appeal, strongly supporting my testimony, it seems that the medically unqualified RAFA Representative would appear to believe the Atos Healthcare doctor, and clearly this is cause for concern if he is meant to represent me at any future Appeal Tribunal.

    My RAFA Rep does appear to struggle with the possibility that a doctor could or would write a bogus medical report, yet seems to presume that a medically retired health professional would happily make a bogus claim. I do not consider his input to be supportive in any way, his constant suspicion was a cause of unnecessary additional distress and I fail to understand why I was obliged to accept his input following firm instructions from an Appeal Judge. (Mar - May '10)

22. EVIDENCE RESISTED: With reference to Atos Healthcare, it is very sinister to note that priority will be given to medical reports from this Contractor (Atos Healthcare) and so the medical evidence provided by the claimant and their doctors will be resisted, as evidenced in my case.

    Indeed, evidence in writing from Atos Healthcare management now confirms that, for the usual face-to-face medical interviews "..the examining practitioner would not have access to a customer's NHS medical patient history."

    Therefore, no matter how much medical evidence is provided by the Claimant, it will be totally ignored. Atos staff are instructed to resist all medical evidence from both the claimant and their doctors, including consultants/specialists, hence my insistence that this government medical assessment system is nothing more than systematic medical abuse to reduce government costs.

    One must therefore challenge why claimants/veterans are obliged to provide large amounts of detailed medical evidence for any application which will then be totally resisted? Atos Healthcare can and do avoid the usual scrutiny by claiming that their doctors are, in fact, "disability analysts" and are not responsible for the care of the claimant/victim/veteran as they do not offer diagnosis or prescriptions etc.

    However, it is my insistence, as confirmed by the GMC, that all doctors have a duty of care to anyone they examine for any reason. Indeed, it is my understanding that any doctor knowingly writing a bogus medical report is actually acting against the law. I am in touch with the GMC, and will await their considered opinion as to my evidence and testimony, that I would willingly provide under oath if necessary. Evidence will be offered to the GMC in the form of a formal complaint after my Appeal Tribunal has been concluded. ( www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html refers) ( www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/atos_medical_examination_falsify) ( www.sunderlandwelfareaction.wordpress.com/tag/medical-assessments) ( www.manchestermule.com/article/incapacity-benefit-claimants-under-scrutiny-in-fitness refers)

23. CASH OFFER: I can also confirm that, once this Contractor had realised that I could not be silenced, they then presumed that my silence could be purchased with the offer of an 'ex-gratia' and 'without prejudice' payment for £200, for a submitted postage invoice for £31.07, to "acknowledge the stress and distress" I had suffered. It seems that Atos Healthcare management have little comprehension of honour, presumed my integrity was for sale, and were a little stunned when I refused to accept the offered excessive payment. A cheque for refunded postage costs to the value of £31.07 was finally received on 23rd April 2010. To date it has not been cashed.

    It is interesting to note that the cheque is funded by the parent company, Atos Origin, with the company cheque stating that payment is "for and on behalf of ATOS ORIGIN IT SERVICES UK LIMITED - Medical Services Expenses" and the compliments slip that arrived in the same envelope with the cheque is from Atos Origin and not Atos Healthcare.

24. CONTRACT ABUSE: Atos Healthcare is so confident with their position of authority that they break the DWP Contract on a daily basis because they can. Who is actually going to stop them?

    For example, the Contract requires the Contractor (Atos Healthcare) to advise the Authority (SPVA) within two days if they receive any complaints from applicants/claimants/war pensioners. Yet I was exchanging correspondence with this company for in excess of 9 months and at no time did they contact the SPVA until I advised that I felt it was time to bring my experience to the attention of the SPVA, who administer my War Pension.

    The Government Contract also confirms that claimants with a diagnosed terminal illness do not need to attend Pathway Meetings, so why do the DWP insist that they do, and there are several groups of illnesses that require the Contractor to provide a specialist medical opinion, with specific medical expertise in that field of medicine, and both progressive cancers and musculo-skeletal difficulties are included.

    Atos Healthcare routinely break the Contract because they presume members of the public have no access to the Contract, and no-one is doing any medical supervision to guarantee that vulnerable patients are offered care and consideration. ( www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html)

25. SPECIALIST OPINION: Given that this Contractor was in breach of contract when sending a novice staff member to conduct my medical review, instead of a medical specialist, I am at a loss as to why I have been placed under such stress for very nearly 18 months and this will be pursued in the fullness of time, health permitting. However, given that the vast majority of claimants have no access to the Contract, this fact is not well known and, since this Contractor has no public accountability, the public never will.

    To date, the GMC has taken no action against any staff member from Atos Healthcare, whose staff habitually write false medical reports about conditions for which they are patently unqualified to pass opinion. This appears to be common practice with this Contractor, who remains confident that they cannot be realistically challenged. To date, their confidence is well justified to the detriment of some of the most profoundly sick and disabled people in this country, and that includes children. (www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html)

26. VEXATIOUS COMPLAINTS: The constant suggestion by the DWP, the GMC and the British Medical Association (BMA), all claiming that any medical assessment that can reduce income is open to "vexatious complaints", appears to have been the general excuse for the DWP to effectively remove all responsibility for the care of our sick and disabled veterans and fellow citizens. Therefore, any and all protests regarding the abuse of patients by this Contractor are routinely dismissed, presuming them all to be "vexatious" and an emotional reaction to being identified as a scrounger being forced back to work.

    There is nothing in place to prevent the Contractor creating as many bogus medical reports as possible, the general public have no idea of the shocking consequences of a so called medical review by this Contractor and, once they have been adversely affected, the general consensus will be that victims will be ignored or not believed.

    Overwhelming evidence from successive annual government reports from the Appeal Tribunals President, Judge Robert Martin, have been totally ignored by the previous Government, and there appears to be no evidence to suggest that this medical tyranny is likely to be improved in the near future, regardless of a change in Government since the recent general election. ( www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/fees/medicalservicedoctors.jsp )

27. RESEARCH EVIDENCE: Research evidence collected, using limited resources, has clearly demonstrated that Atos Healthcare and the DWP totally ignore the government Contract conditions by, for example, failing to inform the SPVA/Authority of a serious complaint from a War Pensioner who was also a retired health professional, insisting that a terminally ill claimant must still attend Pathway Meetings or risk forfeit of benefits, by attempting to resist the award of DLA for a profoundly disabled child and by failing to provide a suitably qualified doctor to conduct my review medical.

    Overwhelming additional evidence is freely available via the Internet and, surely, not every one of the thousands of disturbing stories can be dismissed, as attempted by the DWP, as being "vexatious"? Clearly Atos Healthcare, supported by the DWP, select which parts of the Contract to adhere to without fear of reprimand, and one wonders how many thousands more people must be traumatised and intimidated, throughout the UK, before someone challenges these demonstrated unacceptable activities of this company when fully supported by the Government? Additional detailed evidence from the Citizens Advice Bureau, Scotland makes disturbing reading. (para 40 refers)

28. STATISTICS: Atos Healthcare is very confident that they can silence most complaints. Dr Kitchen, at the SPVA, confirmed that Atos claim that there are only 24 reported "letters of complaint" from every 7,000 people medically examined by Atos Healthcare and, indeed, these are figures willingly published in government reports about this Contractor and have marginally increased from earlier claims that there were only 7 reported complaints per 7,000 examinations.

    However, Atos Healthcare, who has repeatedly demonstrated that they are economical with the truth, exclusively provides these totally unsubstantiated statistics. I challenge these statistics as, judging from the wealth of complaints about this company available via the Internet, the significant and increasing numbers of successful Appeals and my distressing personal experience, it seems likely that most complaints are handled by the Contractor without admission to any Authority or inclusions in any statistics provided for the DWP.

    For this the government are paying in excess of £80 million per annum of taxpayers' money. Indeed, Dr Kitchen of the SPVA appears to be so confident with statistics from the company that he can attend meetings at district War Pension Committees (WPC) where he freely admits that he has "no knowledge" of any complaints about Atos Healthcare medicals. He has since been educated! www.veterans-uk.info - extract from WPC East Midlands minutes, 30th Aug 2007 refers.)

29. PRESSURE: Both Atos Healthcare and the SPVA attempted to silence me so one must be concerned for large numbers of other genuine victims of this company, who are unlikely to have the necessary skills and confidence to challenge bogus medical opinion. They also may not be too experienced at writing formal letters and documents. Therefore, I believe that this system is very, very sinister and smacks of desperation from a Government that has bankrupted this nation, and now the sick and disabled people of this country are easy targets and are being used to reclaim some of the nation's lost wealth by using bogus medical reports to resist helping those most in need.

    Clearly, this DWP government Contract had cross party support as Gordon Brown, when Prime Minister, insisted that 1 million people would be removed from the old Incapacity Benefit and David Cameron claimed that the numbers of people in receipt of DLA would be reduced by 25%. These claims made good press copy but how do they know that, in advance, without a guaranteed system to abuse sick and disabled people and to reduce government care costs without challenge??

    It is apparent that Atos Healthcare are working towards achieving these totals, regardless of the fact that most people interviewed are genuine and only dubious medical reports can guarantee to have chronically disabled people, or victims of a life threatening condition, removed from long term disability benefits to be placed onto Job Seekers Allowance. Surely, if there were this claimed "overwhelming evidence" of dishonest claimants, common sense dictates that they would be prosecuted for their dishonesty and for knowingly stealing from the State? Someone, somewhere should be asking where this identified evidence came from, then check out the activities at the UnumProvident Centre in Cardiff. (para 9 refers) ( www.justice2008.co.uk/MedicalServices.aspx )

30. DANGEROUS COMPUTER QUESTIONNAIRE: The Contractor's parent company, Atos Origin, is an IT company and dependency on a computer-generated questionnaire does appear to be exasperating a serious problem at the Atos Healthcare medical assessment centres. Indeed, all computer-generated questionnaires are notorious as they cannot allow for common sense, for medical variances within an identical diagnosed health condition and because administrators will be making judgements from questionnaire conclusions about medical conditions for which they are totally unqualified.

    Doctors may complete the computer questionnaire in interview with patients/claimants, but administrators calling themselves Decision Makers take decisions regarding benefit, war pensions etc based on conclusions dictated by the questionnaire. An example of the problem is available on all Microsoft Word software: running a spelling and grammar check over a document will produce computer suggested changes. Most are appropriate but some are nonsense, and will be ignored by the writer, who has the skills to know the difference.

    Clearly, administrators do not have the necessary medical knowledge and skills to overlook nonsensical computer generated conclusions; hence the many and growing numbers of distressed victims of this company. An obvious example are the growing numbers of terminally ill claimants, classed as being fit for work, because they are physically capable of collecting a pen from the floor! This is very dangerous nonsense!

31. CLAIMANT DISTRESS: Do not underestimate the levels of stress and distress caused by staff members from this Contractor, and this increases once a claimant demonstrates the temerity to challenge their authority. Then Atos Healthcare will attempt to apply pressure whilst ignoring the required contact with the identified government Authority.

    I received a total of four letters, from a variety of doctors from Atos Healthcare and the SPVA, all attempting to defend the original bogus medical report, before the Medical Director for Atos Healthcare finally apologised and acknowledged, via a letter from the National Customer Relations Manager, that the 2008 medical report had "failed to reach professional standards". This insincere apology was an attempt, I believe, to finally make me stop my formal complaint.

    However, both the MD of Atos Healthcare and the SPVA failed to respond to the identified breaches of good medical practice and breach of medical ethics, as identified in my very detailed complaint. Having belatedly received apologies, from the MD from both Atos Healthcare and the SPVA, they presumed that I would then quietly disappear and await the additional medical assessment prior to my Appeal Tribunal.

    Yet in all communication they both, constantly, refer to the contents of the medical report that they have been repeatedly told was totally bogus, and the content was a work of fiction. If they refuse to accept my testimony then this matter can never be satisfactorily resolved, and they are both totally resistant to acknowledging the contents of my testimony. They are simply apologising for the doctor's unprofessional behaviour, not for the bogus medical opinion he reported.

    Perhaps both the SPVA and the Contractor ignore all complaints given that Atos Healthcare are exempt from medical regulation and remain confidant that they can never realistically be challenged?

    The harrowing experience of patients when attending one of the Contractor's medical centres is reported by the designer of the www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html website, as witnessed when he was required to attend another appointment, despite having a terminal diagnosis and the onset of Grand Mal Epilepsy, as confirmed by a Consultant Neurosurgeon.

    He reports the following: "The first thing you will notice when you attend a medical examination centre is the atmosphere of menace and oppression. You are asked for identification. My NHS prescription charges exemption card was accepted. You are kept waiting. In my case forty minutes after the time of the appointment was due to start.

    A very sick young girl arrived five minutes after the fifteen minutes allowed for being late. Her carer was still trying to park. She had struggled to get upstairs on her own. Parking places are not provided. She was treated without compassion. Her appointment was cancelled even though all appointments, by that time, were running at least 30 minutes late. She asked if she could make a new appointment there and then. She was refused. She was told that, not that they could not do this but that they would not do this. She was told to go home and ring the appointment centre.

    One reason Atos Healthcare was awarded the contract by the DWP was that they claimed to have expertise in IT services. A reasonable person might question why staff who presumably can access a central booking system behaves in such an unhelpful manner? Remember the harsh and unwarranted treatment of the patient is not personal. The staff are only obeying instructions. The staff are told to consider the people as customers not as patients. The staff may not be on the pay scales or conditions that are typical in NHS establishments.....I felt this Kafkaesque process was an unwarranted approach to be used against the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. It does additional harm as the patient is lured into a false belief that, as this is a medical procedure, it will benefit the patient.

    When realisation eventually dawns, disbelief disgust and anger are a natural consequence of seeing ill people kicked while they are down. I was so weak I nearly fainted under the Tube. I was seriously ill for four days. It took weeks to recover my strength because of the actions of Atos Healthcare. Despite complaints and appeals, you may still be ordered to attend "work" meetings. You should reply to each request made in error with an additional complaint. If you do feel strong enough do point out you are the patient not the customer. The DWP is the customer. You are a patient covered by the state duty of care." ( www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html re: DWP ESA Medical Examinations - ESA Medical Examination - Practical Matters refers) NB: The author of this website is terminally ill with an inoperable primary brain tumour. WHY does the DWP actively encourage a private company to abuse such seriously ill patients??

32. SPVA: The Deputy Head of Veterans Medical Services, from the SPVA, claimed that he would usually have offered me another medical "in these circumstances" but, given that my case was under Appeal, this was not possible.

    One needs to question how many times this has happened in the past "in these circumstances" from a senior doctor who claimed, at a regional WPC meeting, that he had "no knowledge of any complaints" about Atos Healthcare medicals? Indeed, this doctor seemed a little stunned to discover, from my reply, that I wouldn't permit another staff member from Atos Healthcare into my home and, following extensive personal research, I confirmed that I don't trust the company or any of their staff.

33. RESPECT: The Deputy Head of Veterans Services (Medical) SPVA - in letters written by employed "drafters" - waxes lyrically about his respect and admiration for disabled veterans yet, clearly, he is not military and has little comprehension of a code of honour. He was informed that I intend to alert the GMC to my serious concerns regarding the medical practice of the Contractor's medical staff and his lack of supervision on behalf of disabled veterans. He was not best pleased with my news. Indeed, he continued to avoid answering specific questions relating to my reported unacceptable experience with the junior doctor, who visited my home and compromised medical ethics on behalf of Atos Healthcare and the SPVA.

    It is interesting to note that this senior doctor has "voluntarily removed" his registration from the GMC Register in the hope, presumably, of avoiding any future responsibility for the consequences of unacceptable treatment by Disability Analysts in the employ of Atos Healthcare.

    Yet, by definition, the Deputy Head of Veterans Medical Services has a duty of care to the disabled veterans of this nation and one has to ask why he is abandoning this duty whilst the Contractor continues to sabotage the War Pension (WP) deterioration from veterans without fear of redress?

    This also begs the question as to how many other disabled veterans have been betrayed by the very government department that is meant to support them?

    Is it not enough that we've had our health, and subsequent quality of life, compromised by service to our country without the need to discover that limiting pensions, and not the welfare of disabled veterans, is now the only priority of the SPVA?

34. CLAIMED REPRIMAND: Following claims from Atos Healthcare that the doctor who visited me had been reprimanded I invited detailed evidence as to the type of reprimand, which was resisted by the National Customer Services Manager, Brian Pepper, claiming that he was prevented from offering confidential information about members of staff and that details had been provided for the designated DWP Contract Manager, whom I then contacted.

    I had presumed that this latest claim was yet another work of fiction by this company, and it seems I was correct. Two months after my initial enquiry in February 2010, I again made contact with the DWP Contract Manager inviting a reply. An incoming letter from the DWP Contract Manager offered apologies claiming that she was awaiting detailed information from Atos Healthcare, which had not been forthcoming!!

35. STRESS & DISTRESS: Once an Appeal Tribunal has been requested the stress on the claimant increases exponentially, with conflicting information from a variety of Justices being sent to the claimant, who may struggle to cope with such stress when already so ill and/or disabled. In my own case, I have had input from no fewer than 4 different Justices and the Appeal Tribunal was originally confirmed as being planned for November 20th 2009.

    At the very last minute I received a 'phone call to advise that the Appeal had been deferred again and I was strongly advised to acquire a Representative. I was resistant to this suggestion as my case is predominantly about compromised medical ethics, and the lack of good medical practice, and I failed to see how anyone could realistically represent me without medical training.

    I finally agreed to obtain help via RAFA but have never met my Representative, whose 'support' revolved around his insistence that the Appeal Tribunal would not be interested in my evidence regarding the Contractor, and he appeared threatened by the fact that I am a retired health professional.

    There was limited contact with my RAFA Representative and I had no idea as to his possible input at any future Appeal Tribunal. I confess he did not inspire any confidence that he intended to support me so one wonders why I should be obliged to use his services? (Paras 20 & 21 refers)

36. PRESUMED AUTHORITY: At the time of starting to prepare this report my Appeal hearing had been altered yet again. Having been invited to permit the Tribunal to take place at my home as, due to serious and variable health limitations I am totally unable to confirm attendance at a distant meeting at some future date, that arrangement was superseded by yet another Judge who deemed, after exclusive consultation with my RAFA Representative, that another medical report was all that was needed; hence more delays.

    I advised the Appeals administrator of my concerns that my Representative had been consulted, and confirmed arrangements changed, without having the courtesy to consult with me. This man is my designated Representative, not my Advocate, yet he presumes an authority he doesn't have and the Appeals administration appear to think this is the norm. Needless to say, following this, my RAFA Representative has been even less supportive. I have no knowledge of the expected time frame between the proposed new medical review visit and the Appeal Tribunal decision.

    I also have no confidence that the RAFA Representative will support my claims and concerns, as I am physically unable to attend the Appeal hearing, now planned to be held in London. My RAFA Representative has yet again firmly instructed me that, if the medical review fails to support my deterioration claim, then I should cancel the expected Appeal or risk the removal of my pension altogether. Is this not just another form of an intimidation?

    It should be noted that it is now over 16 months since my unhappy experience with a staff member from Atos Healthcare and 20 months since I first advised an increase in my pensionable disabilities.

    In 21st Century UK, it surely shouldn't take almost two years for justice to be seen to be done when some of the victims/claimants/veterans/patients are so very ill. If this is the normal time frame for an Appeal Tribunal, many people who are terminally ill risk death before any decision regarding their Appeal has been considered. This can't possibly be considered to be justice. (As of April 2010)

37. TRIBUNAL MEDICAL: The additional medical review for the Appeal Tribunal was conducted at my home, in the presence of my carer, on 29th April 2010 and 16 months after the previous unacceptable medical, conducted by a presumed doctor from Atos Healthcare. This time the visiting doctor was a specialist Consultant Rheumatologist, a high calibre clinician, and I had no problems whatsoever with his conduct or his attitude.

    As a quality professional he happily produced photo ID on arrival, without being invited to do so, in opposition to the attitude of the doctor from Atos Healthcare who had refused to offer any form of ID, despite being asked to do so on 3 separate occasions.

    Immediately after the visit by the Consultant I forwarded an email to both my RAFA Representative, and the Administrator for the Appeal Tribunal, to confirm that I was happy with the Consultant regardless of his medical opinion or of the future outcome of my Appeal. This was to confirm that I do not habitually feel the need to dispute medical opinion, which appears to have been the underlying suggestion of this entire Appeal. Time will tell if this Consultant, representing the Appeal Tribunal and not in the employ of Atos Healthcare, actually confirms my deterioration claim. If not, all my evidence will be dismissed and I will no doubt be accused of making a "vexatious" claim, which is the Government's excuse for introducing a private medical agency that operates outside of all accepted medical parameters, to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. (As of 29th April)

38. REPORT: The report from the Appeal Tribunal Consultant confirmed that my deterioration claim was genuine. The visiting Consultant had advised me that it was not in his remit to suggest the percentage disability to be awarded despite the fact that, in the 2006 medical review report, the visiting doctor had confirmed that he concurred with my GP and that I had presented as being at least 60% disabled at that time.

    It is sinister that the medical report forms were changed to prevent any examining doctor confirming the percentage disability presented by examination of the patient - another cost cutting measure by the DWP, presumably following too many confirmed deterioration claims in the past?

    The new medical report by the visiting Consultant, on behalf of the Appeal Tribunal, was received and not only concluded that my claim was genuine but also described me as a "stoical woman." A copy of the new medical report was forwarded to my RAFA Representative and I then decided that my Appeal Tribunal should now continue at a date yet to be decided.

    My original RAFA Representative, who constantly placed me under additional stress, was to retire on 28th May and I was allocated a new Representative, with whom I have yet to make contact. Just prior to his retirement, and following a positive medical report from the visiting Consultant, the outgoing RAFA Representative instructed me to request that the Tribunal should still be conducted at my home, to give the Tribunal members the opportunity to meet with me. His attitude had finally dramatically improved since receiving a copy of the new medical report and he now decided to believe me! A telecom was received on 27th May to confirm that the Appeal Tribunal would be listed for 1st July in London in my absence. I requested the possibility of a home visit and I await that decision (as of 27th May).

39. PLEASE CONSIDER: With reference to sick and disabled veterans in particular, together with the growing numbers of injured service members from the on-going conflicts, the Government's reduction of designated medical help and support for the military has been ongoing for many years without too much public interest. As yet another example of able bodied politicians and administrators making decisions for which they are patently unqualified, it was decided long ago to close all military hospitals and the majority of the military rehabilitation units in order, of course, to reduce costs. Consequently, not only was the most designated medical support removed for our military but the NHS was then catastrophically compromised, by re-allocating military medical care to the over stretched NHS.

    In theory, two wards in some of the larger district hospitals throughout the UK have subsequently been closed to civilians and provided for the exclusive use of the military. In reality, the NHS will use whatever resources are available, hence civilian patients are frequently found on wards that were meant to be for the exclusive use of the military, and vice versa, which stresses all patients both civilian and military.

    Needless to say, someone, somewhere no doubt patted themselves on the back as an example of saving the Government £millions and, at the same time, demonstrating their total ignorance concerning the very obvious consequences of such a dire choice. Clearly, to a medical professional, it is indisputable that the mental health and well being of patients who are sick, disabled and/or injured in the service of their country cannot be separated from their physical well being and recovery.

    There are limitless clinical reports confirming that physical recovery can and will be delayed if the patient is stressed, or distressed, and one guaranteed way to distress injured members of the military is to remove them from the familiar security of military life and catapult them into a civilian environment. Being a member of the military is a way of life, not just a job, and this is totally disregarded for medical care to limit care costs, which will be increased exponentially due to increases in recovery time when these patients are removed from all that is familiar. When needing medical care and least able to cope, military patients are placed into a predominantly civilian environment.

    This isn't rocket science, it is common sense and is supported by clinicians whose opinions will be silenced or ignored. Closing the military hospitals also removed the military medical staff housing, plus support staff, hence it is never likely to be reversed and the NHS will continue to be overwhelmed by being forced to share limited resources with the military. This nonsense also means that military medical staff, dressed in full uniform, are obliged to work in a civilian environment and then they wonder why staff morale is low! Then, just when all available medical resources are stretched to the limit, the Government controversially commits this nation to a war zone that will last for years and guarantees that the numbers of disabled military patients will dramatically increase and the limited allocated resources have been demonstrated to be totally inadequate.

    The Government also altered the War Pension to an entirely new compensation system for military disabled in the line of duty from 2005. The very belated introduction of a public holiday, designated as Veterans' Day, really can't begin to compensate for the systematic neglect of medical care for our military, both serving and veterans. The UK are knowingly sending our military into war zones which guarantees they will only receive limited medical support if injured. They deserve better! (www.theforgottenheroes.co.uk refers)

40. CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU: Prior to the introduction of the new government medical assessments using Atos Healthcare, officials had already been indoctrinated to expect a massive public outcry as countless numbers of people were to be removed from a life on benefit to get them back into the world of work, despite the fact that there is record unemployment. Ever since, no matter what overwhelming evidence has been placed before the DWP regarding the failure of the Contractor to help the sick & disabled people who must use their services, it is simply dismissed as the DWP's only concern is the reduction of care costs.

    This was demonstrated in the Government's reaction to a major report by Citizens Advice Scotland, whose detailed evidence labelled the new ESA benefit system as being "unfit" and quoting countless examples of distress experienced by profoundly disabled people, with 69% of applicants being found fit to work by the totally unworkable and dangerous computer tick test evaluation system.

    According to the very detailed report, the new benefits system have caused "misery and frustration" for vulnerable people yet the DWP's response, as expected, was to claim that: "...the assessment is about creating a fairer and more accurate picture of a person's physical or mental condition. This is how claimants can best get the right help and support." These comments were in reaction to the introduction of the new ESA benefit, that replaces Incapacity Benefit, with able bodied civil servants and politicians waxing lyrically about its claimed merits with no concern, and certainly no interest, in examining overwhelming and detailed evidence that demonstrates that the Contractor totally disregards the Contract, leaving sick and disabled people traumatised by their callous and insensitive so called medical assessments.

    The Government don't want to know and continue to demonstrate that they will not listen.

    Despite being consulted about the new medical assessment system prior to its introduction, the Disability Alliance are now on record expressing growing concerns with the mounting evidence of trauma experienced by disabled people whose recent medical assessment have concluded that most are fit to work when, clearly, most of them are not. (www.cas.org.uk as of 25th May) (www.disabilityalliance.org )

41. CONCERNS: Despite the identified concerns of the Justices who must consider the evidence at Appeal Tribunals, and identified in every annual report to the Government, Atos Healthcare are protected by the DWP. The abuse of the sick and disabled people of this nation continues, without fear of challenge or reprimand, and a reasonable person could only conclude that this is justified by some arbitrary target set by political leaders.

    Attempting to reach unobtainable and unrealistic Government targets, in the minds of many, appears to have caused the deaths of at least 400 patients in Stafford Hospital in particular, as recently highlighted by the Prime Minister (PM) when he announced a long awaited public inquiry to be chaired by Robert Francis QC.

    Now the new Prime Minister has announced hospitals should get rid of "the targets" and get back to decent hygiene and nursing care. Perhaps the new Prime Minister is starting to wake up to the dangers of politicians attempting to enforce targets where health is concerned? Perhaps he will also wake up to the fact that, without the authority of a resident Matron on site, all patients are at the mercy of Medical Administrators, who have a business degree instead of nursing experience. That is why patients die from a lack of basic hygiene and nursing care supervision!

    Research evidence has confirmed that Atos Healthcare actively instruct their staff to resist all medical evidence provided in support of the claimants, and totally dubious medical reports by the Contractor's medical staff have been demonstrated to be the norm. Indeed, it is easy to confirm that Atos Healthcare constantly breach the DWP government Contract, which is rewarded at an annual cost of £80 million per annum, and the DWP Contract Manager has demonstrated that, indeed, they are totally impotent to challenge the activities of this medical tyranny.

    In my experience the SPVA now resist all responsibility to the nation's disabled veterans by residing in the shadow of the undoubted power and authority of Atos Healthcare. (PM speech: BBC News as of 9th June refers.)

42. SPVA/ATOS COLLABORATION: I eventually received a reply from the DWP Contract Manager, three months after my initial request. She resisted my request for any evidence that the doctor from Atos Healthcare, who had provided a totally bogus medical report, had been reprimanded for his unethical conduct. Despite the claims to the contrary from the Atos Healthcare National Customer Relations Manager, Brian Pepper, the DWP Contract Manager, no doubt, had no evidence of any such reprimand. However, she did enclose copies of a selection of emails between the MD of Atos Healthcare, Dr David Beswick and the Deputy Director of Medical Services for SPVA, Dr Paul Kitchen.

    As suspected, Dr Kitchen expressed frustration that I could not be silenced and offered considerable support and gratitude to the MD at Atos Healthcare. There was no evidence whatsoever of any concern for my welfare, as a chronically disabled veteran, and Dr Kitchen had emailed all possible letters he was writing to me for prior APPROVAL from the Atos Healthcare MD in the hope that he wasn't writing anything that could cause the Atos MD problems! This from the man whose principal concern is meant to be for the welfare of the sick and disabled veterans of this nation.

    Quite clearly, the Government's insistence that all government departments must reduce costs includes the SPVA, whose only concern is evidently not to upset Atos Healthcare management. Most interesting is the fact that Dr Beswick, as Medical Director of Atos Healthcare, has persistently failed to personally respond to any of my letters. Indeed, he's concerned with any possible redress from the GMC, as identified in comments via email to Dr Kitchen, and so he refuses to put his opinion in writing. Instead, he prefers to pass his opinions via the National Customer Relations Manager, Mr Brian Pepper.

    Included in his emails to Dr Kitchen, Dr Beswick confirms his irritation that I am about to refer his staff member to the GMC and he claims that "..she is still looking for blood via the GMC.." and "..the GMC will quote and use every word and phrase we draft, hence my caution." Dr Kitchen offers sympathy and concern to Dr Beswick and confirms that he uses "drafters" to write comforting and supporting letters to the victims of Atos Healthcare to add the "touchy/feely factor" that, he admits, he isn't too good at achieving.

    Therefore, perhaps the new Government could begin to reduce costs by removing the staff costs of 'drafters' from the employ of the SPVA by requiring the Deputy Director of Medical Services to write his own letters? Even better, for the chronically disabled veterans of this nation, perhaps the Government could employ a Deputy Director of Medical Services at the SPVA who actually expresses care and concern for the victims of this Contractor, who have already served this country to the best of their ability?

    Where is the genuine support for the disabled veterans who have lost their health in the service of this nation??? (Contents of emails between Dr Kitchen & Dr Beswick refers)

43. ATOS HEALTHCARE INFLUENCE: Detailed research by a very remarkable victim of this company, who is himself terminally ill with only months to live, has revealed overwhelming evidence of the influence of this company. I am very grateful for all his hard work, help and support. Atos Healthcare is owned by Atos Origin UK, which is owned by the parent company Atos Origin. Atos Healthcare is a member of the following organisations:

    1. WHITEHALL & INDUSTRY GROUP (www.wig.co.uk)
    2. EURIM PARLIAMENT GROUP (www.eurim.org.uk)
    3. PARLIAMENTARY IT COMMITTEE (www.pitcom.org.uk)
    4. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (www.mca.org.uk)
    5. COMMERCIAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROVIDERS (www.cohpa.co.uk)

    Commercial Occupational Health Providers (COHPA) held their 2009 AGM and Conference on Thursday 17th September 2009 at Atos Healthcare, Regent's Place, London. COHPA were delighted to entertain a packed house at both occasions, with over 150 guests throughout the day overall. Guests included:

    • Dame Carol Black, National Director for Health & Work, HWWB
    • Mark Bounds, COHPA Chairman from Atos Origin - parent company - Host
    • Professor Mansel Aylward, Director Unum CPDR (Govt Advisor for Welfare Reform & introduction of Atos Healthcare for DWP medicals) (www.justice2008.co.uk/MedicalServices.aspx www.cardiff.ac.uk/medic/contractsandpeople/a/aylward-mansel-prof-overview-new.html )
    • Diane Kloss, Chair UK Council for Occupational Health
    • Greame Henderson, Head of Health & Work DEPT OF HEALTH
    • Dr Bill Gunnyeon, Chief Medical Advisor DWP
    • Noel O'Reilly, Editor OH (magazine)
    • Cynthia Atwell, Chair RCN Public Health Forum RCN
    • Jeremy Smith, AOHNP (UK)
    • Dr Steve Boorman, Director Corporate Responsibility ROYAL MAIL
    • Dr John Osman, Chief Medical Advisor HSE

    For the black tie 5th Anniversary Dinner over 100 members and guests celebrated with COHPA at the Armourer's Hall. Mark Bounds, COHPA Chairman from Atos Origin was the host. Professor Mansel Aylward (former DWP Chief Medical Advisor) gave the keynote address and COHPA Board, past and present, were there. Dr Geoff Helliwell (Founder Director) and Greame Henderson of the Department of Health were honoured guests.

    In legal cases it is useful to consider what a reasonable person would conclude. WHY is the DWP so reluctant to enforce the Contract between the DWP and Atos Origin? (www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html)

44. ATOS HEALTHCARE MARKETING: According to the Atos Healthcare website only 1% of patient experience with AH medical staff is considered to be poor, with 80% apparently deemed to be excellent by the visiting "patients". (In whose opinion??)

    The Company also claims an entire page full of very positive feedback from patient comments, which are of course totally anonymous, and according to the page identified as 'information for Claimants', comments include the fact that "You will be treated fairly and respectfully at all times during your assessment." This is corporate marketing at its best but clearly not based in reality. I can find no other evidence on the entire Internet of any positive comments regarding patient experiences with medical professionals from this company. (www.atoshealthcare.com)

45. FINAL RESULT: Shortly after receiving a copy of the medical opinion of the visiting Consultant, who represented the Appeal Tribunal, I received an unexpected offer from the SPVA of an increased War Pension at a rate of 70% disability as an INTERIM award, back dated to August 2008 when I had originally applied for the medical review. This is significantly less than the percentage disability identified by my GP, and my RAFA Rep had been very hopeful that I would be awarded at least 80% disability at the Appeal Tribunal after seeing the consultant's report. (An award of 80% disability opens up additional financial support for profoundly disabled veterans.)

    However, my new very experienced RAFA Rep felt that this sudden and unexpected offer of an increased pension was ".... a remarkable climb down and very, very rare..." to have an increased pension offered so close to a planned Appeal hearing.

    However, having spent the past 22 months attempting to regain my integrity, living with increasing anguish and distress which impacted on my health, and at a point of total clinical exhaustion, I happily agreed to accept this new offer of a minimal increase in my pension. As a consequence, my Appeal will lapse. The challenge to my integrity was always just as important to me as any increase in my pension. Indeed, it's an interesting coincidence that my pension was suddenly and unexpectedly increased within days of me advising Dr Kitchen, at the SPVA, that I had access to the exchanges of emails between himself and Dr Beswick at Atos Healthcare, which confirmed his total lack of concern for my complaint and considerable concern for the MD of Atos Healthcare. To date, I have not received a reply from Dr Kitchen. (as of 17th June 2010)

46. INTEGRITY: The suggestion that I was dishonest was totally intolerable to me and, given that in the past I have written a variety of professional reports, I couldn't permit this sleight on my character to remain unchallenged as it was a tarnish on my reputation. Now that my pension has been marginally increased, to finally acknowledge the continuing deterioration in my health with increasing disabilities, and my integrity and credibility are restored, I feel confident to offer this research evidence to others.

47. VERY DISTURBING CONSIDERATIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Following 9 months of research, and almost 2 years of my life overshadowed by the suggestion that I am dishonest, what is of great concern is the total lack of any obvious repercussions in place to reprimand health professionals from Atos Healthcare who deliberately compromise their oath of office. They knowingly write bogus medical reports to prevent financial help for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as encouraged by the company at staff training.

    What systems are in place to protect the public and to challenge these deliberately misleading medical reports, as identified at Appeal, and repeatedly reported by Judge Robert Martin in his annual reports to Government, which are invariably ignored? Or, as I suspect, once the Appeal has been granted and the Claimant is finally vindicated, Atos Healthcare staff simply move on to produce the next totally bogus medical report, without reprimand.

    What about the anguish and distress the Claimant/Veteran has experienced for months or years due to unscrupulous health professionals knowingly creating bogus medical reports? Where is the serious redress and acknowledgement of what these victims have suffered just to gain access to financial support to which they are legally and morally entitled??

    This is surely a national scandal and, I say again, it is at a cost to this country of at least £80 million per annum to fund the DWP Contract with Atos Healthcare, who are identified as the Contractor. The Government must accept culpability for this nightmare it has created. The acknowledgement that a small percentage of dishonest people have enjoyed ongoing financial support from a bogus claim has meant that there is now a witch hunt mentality in place, masquerading as medical assessment. Everyone who is sick or disabled is presumed to be bogus until such times as overwhelming evidence, of illness or disability, is eventually and reluctantly accepted, often via Appeal.

    The callous and threatening attitude of the DWP is now also apparent with the SPVA, whose concern should be for disabled veterans, and the lack of dedication to disabled veterans is a cause for alarm. I humbly suggest that this is nothing less than a national scandal as it has permitted this medical tyranny to replace medical knowledge and actual concern. The suggestion of bogus claimants has kept the national press fed with exposing stories, which has all added to the public's callous attitude as the able bodied population suffer with high unemployment and jobs being under threat. The mentality that some people are getting handouts to which they are not entitled has led to the most sinister public outcry, actively encouraged by the UK Government.

    There is now evidence, from published Government committee meetings, that the DWP Committee members themselves are not familiar with the contents of the 500-page government Contract with Atos Healthcare. They don't appear to realise that the Contract confirmed that medical evidence provided by any claimant, including reports from Specialists/Consultants, would be resisted in favour of exclusive acceptance of the medical reports from Atos Healthcare staff members. This shocking Contract offers the private Contractor unparalleled authority, and guarantees that genuinely sick and disabled people of this nation will be traumatised just because they are too ill to work and presumed to invite financial help.

    The only recorded statistics are those provided by the Contractor, who has demonstrated repeatedly that they choose their words carefully. This is evidenced by Dr Kitchen, of the SPVA, claiming at WPC meetings that he has "no knowledge" of any complaints about Atos Healthcare medicals and insisting that the company only receive 24 complaints for every 7,000 medicals undertaken. That is because the company do not report the complaints, as demonstrated by the fact that I was in correspondence with them for in excess of 9 months and at no time had they advised the SPVA about my complaint. Yet the Contract obliges the company to report all complaints to the Authority within 2 days of receipt. Clearly they don't and, really, why should they?

    Who is actually imposing any medical supervision on this private company??? The so-called Contract Manager is a joke. They can't possibly offer medical supervision as they are administrators. They are in place to simply quantify statistics presented by the company, which have been easily demonstrated to be bogus.

    According to the GMC this company enjoys total immunity from medical regulation, which means that the only redress offered to anyone who has suffered such callous abuse by Atos Healthcare medical staff is that they must then deal with the distress of making a formal complaint to the GMC, usually without medical knowledge or support. This is only possible if the victim of this company actually knows the name of the doctor who examined them. Indeed, the GMC advise that most people loose heart given that any GMC investigation can take up to three years to conclude.

    Why should the distressed innocent victims of this company, who are already ill and/or disabled, put themselves through such additional trauma without the guarantee that they will ever find justice?? That is why so much detail of the shocking abuse by unacceptable medical staff is never challenged or resolved. That is also why the company remain confident that they can continue to traumatise innocent victims of this medical evaluation system, without fear of serious challenge or reprimand, in order to reduce Government care costs. Indeed, that is this company's only priority. There is overwhelming evidence to confirm this company's diabolical attitude to their sick and disabled victims who are examined by their staff. The emphasis is on corporate business and profit margins and the patients, clients or veterans are simply a means to that end. Indeed, since the staff are paid per examination, it can't be too much of a surprise that time is not wasted on pleasantries or putting the patient/claimant at their ease and, clearly, patient welfare is not a concern. (Decision Making & Appeals in the Benefit System - Second Report of session 2009-10 refers)

48. IT'S TIME TO EXPOSE THE EVIDENCE: Atos Healthcare boast that they employ more doctors than any other company outside of the NHS, but what type of doctors are employed? It would be very easy to expose this government medical catastrophe using high calibre and independent medical staff, not employed by Atos Healthcare, and with the authority of, perhaps, the Lord Justice Carnwath, the Senior President of Tribunals or whomsoever has such an authority. Perhaps retired military doctors would be a good place to start recruiting this small emergency medical army, and this could only be successful if carried out WITHOUT WARNING to the Contractor.

    A team of doctors, and other health care professionals, should descend upon Atos Healthcare medical assessment centres in the UK, including the SPVA for the older veterans, without notice, and choose at random at least 100 staff members to examine their last 100 medical reports. Check the percentage of their reports that have supported claimants when compared to the percentage rejected and, of those rejected, compare the medical examination reports of Atos Healthcare staff with what will be significant supporting testimony from GPs and/or consultants.

    I can guarantee that the unprofessional and arrogant novice doctor who visited me in December 2008 was very experienced at writing totally bogus medical reports. So too I suggest was the Physiotherapist, whose bogus report prevented a profoundly disabled young boy from obtaining the help to which he was entitled.

    At best the Government has been blinded, as most politicians are similar to the general public and presume, wrongly, that all medical staff will be honourable and are, therefore, incapable of choosing to write misleading reports. Medical staff are like any other group of people, and there are good and bad in them all. It's time to stop the damage and expose this national scandal to protect the hundreds of thousands of genuinely sick and disabled people of this nation from further trauma.

49. DWP COMMERCIAL DIRECTORATE: Correlating a document of this size takes time, and references must be checked and enclosures found. I hadn't anticipated any more correspondence regarding this lengthy battle but, on June 23rd, a very long and detailed letter arrived from the Correspondence Manager of the Commercial Directorate Medical Services, DWP. In other words, this was the formal reply from the Contract Manager division of the DWP in response to my previous letters written months ago. Contained within the six pages of A4 stationary, Mr John Murphy offers profuse apologies but not because Atos Healthcare had permitted a staff member to attempt to intimidate a lone disabled woman, then wrote a totally bogus medical report.

    Indeed not, as his apology was limited to the time taken for the complaint to be 'resolved' and that did gain my attention, as I was unaware that my complaint had been resolved! Mr Murphy challenges any suggestion of a breach of contract and now actually claims that there is "...no actual requirement for Atos Healthcare to notify the Department, in this case the SPVA, that they have received a complaint from a customer." It seems that there must now be another Contract that is different to the copy I have...

    Throughout this lengthy document it is clear that Mr Murphy is repeating information provided by Atos Healthcare that, unfortunately, was a long way away from the reality of my experience. Throughout this document this Correspondence Manager unreservedly supports Atos Healthcare and still fails to acknowledge anything from my complaint. He even justifies the fact that the company attempted to buy my silence with an offer of £200. Mr Murphy rejects any suggestion that the medical report provided by the visiting Healthcare Professional was in any way bogus, yet he is himself medically unqualified, and presumably he believes that my doctors and I have lied?

    Even more disturbing, this civil servant dismissed all the identified concerns contained in the annual government reports as provided by Judge Robert Martin and, the reason why the DWP ignored those reports is quite simple - they choose not to accept the contents of any report that challenges the activity of this private company. It is very obvious that Mr Murphy repeats verbatim any and all details as provided by the Contractor and all other detailed information, from a claimant to a Judge, will be totally dismissed. A copy of his letter will be one of the enclosures to this report. (As of 23rd June)

CONCLUSIONS:

No doubt the SPVA and Atos Healthcare are breathing sighs of relief with a presumption that a belated minimal increase in my pension will now stop this as yet unresolved serious complaint. However, the sudden and unexpected increase in my War Pension totally fails to acknowledge almost 2 years of incredible additional stress and anxiety, which has taken its toll on my health, and could have been avoided if I had originally been visited by a specialist doctor as required by the contract. Atos Healthcare breached the contract by failing to advise the SPVA that I had raised a formal complaint and by failing to provide a specialist opinion for my review medical and, as such, they have a lot to answer for. This failure will be pursued in time. Indeed, in order to prevent any such distress being afforded to any other veteran, I will suggest that Atos Healthcare staff should be prevented from undertaking medicals on this nation's disabled veterans in the future. No doubt my suggestion will be ignored, just as the Government have continually ignored all detailed annual reports from His Honour Judge Robert Martin, when President of the Appeal Tribunals. On-going conflicts have present day service members being killed or injured, with daily reports being exposed by the national news, so let's hope that the new coalition government may have different ideas of how to commit British Forces. Clearly, the nation's concerns are with the injured servicemen/women, and all possible help and support should be given to them and their distressed families. Yet, having already served this nation, our sick and disabled older veterans also deserve much better consideration than presently offered by the SPVA, Atos Healthcare and the DWP. Given the influence of this private company, and the public money invested in this seriously flawed so called health evaluation system, it is likely that the sick and disabled people of this country will continue to suffer at the hands of Atos Healthcare staff, who demonstrate unlimited power but lack medical accountability, as afforded by their principal customer i.e. the DWP/UK Government.

I salute the work of everyone involved with Help for Heroes, whose efforts have raised additional £millions to support our injured service men and women returning home from the front. However, this concentrates the mind as, if the military hospitals hadn't been closed, Help for Heroes wouldn't need to exist or their funds would be used for extras instead of vital essentials.

It's time to remove these "disability denial factories" from the UK

A great deal of time and effort has been spent researching this very serious situation. One thing is certain and that is that no-one in authority appears to be totally familiar with the 500 page contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare. Perhaps, once the full implications of this unacceptable contract is fully appreciated Ken Clarke, as Secretary of State for Justice, may wish to recommend to the new Government that the contract should not be renegotiated again. Better still, perhaps Mr Clarke may recommend that this company is removed, and their contract not renewed in 2012, and then the profoundly sick and chronically disabled people of this nation will no longer need to fear being medically assessed for the DWP. (as of 6th June 2010)

NB: AH contract recently extended to 2015 to assess all DLA claimants.

Only then, when the medical opinion of doctors and consultants who actually treat the patient is actually accepted, will justice finally be seen to be done for the countless numbers of victims of this private company, who have no public accountability and whose power and unlimited authority know no limits. How many more horror stories must be reported before someone accepts the wealth of disturbing details available about this company? (as of 30th June, 2010) (*Healthcare Commission now replaced with Care Quality Commission.)

POST-SCRIPT (1):

Since this report was originally completed and distributed, in June 2010, further information has been brought to my attention, hence the need for additional editing. In a letter to a dying man, the Manager of the DWP CMMS department has now confirmed in writing that the DWP never have audited/monitored the contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare, contrary to claims by successive Prime Ministers and Ministers, who constantly reassure the House and the British public. In her letter to Mr B..., Hilary Brierley confirmed that: ".the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with its contractual obligations." However, there have been many meetings to confirm "performance targets". Someone should explain to this woman the difference between a contractual right and a contractual obligation when dealing with a £100million government contract.

I confirm this report is being used as evidence by Professor Harrington for the WCA independent review.

QED: It's now confirmed that the £100 million per annum DWP contract with Atos Healthcare never has been monitored/audited by the DWP for compliance with the contract. (as of 8th October 2010) [During the 2009-2010 financial year the DWP paid Atos Origin £150,798,435. Source is a Freedom of Information request made to the DWP (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/top-100-commercial-suppliers.pdf)...EDITOR]

POST SCRIPT (2): THE HARRINGTON REPORT

An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment, headed by Professor Malcolm Harrington, was published on 23rd November 2010 and used my original research report as a contribution to the evidence for the review. The Professor has not endorsed my research, nor do I seek his endorsement. The Professor's report confirmed unacceptable and limited activity by the Decision Makers, who fail to consider all presented medical evidence, and confirm anything presented by an Atos Healthcare assessment. This is in breach of the contract as exposed in this full research report originally completed in June 2010. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf (as of 23rd November 2010)

POST SCRIPT (3): UNUM PROVIDENT NOW REBRANDED TO: UNUM

In a feature article by Jonathan Rutherford, it is confirmed that the former DWP Chief Medical Adviser, Professor Mansel Aylward, was known to Unum as far back as 1994 and is now the Director of the Unum Centre at Cardiff University, funded by Unum. www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/rutherford07.html (as of 12th December 2010)

POST SCRIPT (4): CARE QUALITY COMMISSION

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) replaced the former Healthcare Commission and, in a letter from Dr Nick Bishop, the Senior Medical Adviser, he confirmed that the CQC only supervise health professionals accessed by the public and cannot oversee Atos Healthcare, a closed operation on behalf of the DWP. The only possible way to persue any grievance, if unsatisfied with internal procedures, is to persue action via the GMC as previously confirmed by the Healthcare Commission. (as of 15th March 2011)

POST SCRIPT (5): RCN REFUSE TO ACCREDIT ATOS HEALTHCARE NURSE TRAINING

Like many people suffering from the trauma of the enforced welfare changes, victims turn to others for support and Carer Watch is a self help group of carers who communicate online. One of their numbers contacted the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) to invite information regarding the legitimacy of the nursing staff used by Atos Healthcare for disability assessments. In a letter from Peter Carter OBE, the Chief Executive and General Secretary of the RCN, dated 9th March 2011, it was confirmed that:

"In August 2009, Atos Healthcare applied to the RCN to have their training for nurse assessors accredited. At this time the RCN was having serious misgivings regarding the Work Capability Assessments carried out by ATOS on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions for applicants of Incapacity Benefit. These concerns were very much echoed by Citizens Advice Bureaux and many other front-line charities. The RCN decided that it "could not ethically or credibly accredit this ATOS training; and in September 2009 the request was declined." (as of 15th March 2011)

My grateful thanks to the member of Carer Watch, who wishes to remain anonymous, for her kind permission to use this information.

As time goes by more and more information comes to my attention, and more and more people are aware of my research and are happy to help. I am grateful to everyone who has supported me over the past 2 years and have given me the strength to carry on even when the going got tough. Thank you all.

FINAL CONCLUSION: The GMC and the Care Quality Commission do not supervise the doctors employed by this private contractor and the Royal College of Nursing refuse to accredit the nurse training so, at some point, someone will have to explain to me why, exactly, this company is being used in the UK?

RESEARCH CAVEAT: It is believed that Unum Insurance, or their predecessor or subsidiary companies, are no longer banned from operating in the US. This is since the company agreed to financial settlements with the DoH of all states, and since the company agreed to pay significant compensation.

It is not known whether Unum Insurance, or their predecessor or subsidiary companies, in particular Unum Provident Insurance, has agreed liability. Unum Insurance are still processing compensation claims years later.

There is anecdotal evidence that the processing of some of the claims are taking a very long time but, to date, there is no evidence to confirm that there is a Unum policy to delay compensation payments.

Given that the reputation of an Unum predecessor or subsidiary company was tainted by the involvement, including the "a priori" company name of "the Unum Provident Insurance", it is reasonable to suppose that the change of name to "Unum Insurance" is an attempt to distance the current Unum operations from the past. It is believed that Unum feel that they are now in a position to be able to deny past culpability. Unum claim, in the US, that they have changed procedures.

It is believed Unum are funding large marketing campaigns in their target markets. Some believe that Unum are using their influence to censor and shut down websites which continue to publish past activities of Unum and its predecessor or subsidiary companies. A number of these websites have been set up by the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. I leave it to you and history to judge how much the attitude of Unum has changed.

All wish that Unum has truly changed. Unum could demonstrate this if they seek dialogue with their distractors and ask the website publisher to amend any published statements that they disagree with. Unfortunately Unum appears, to many, to be attempting to rewrite history and is attempting to cleanse the knowledge of a discreditable past.

The reasons for the removal of a BBC transcript (republished here dwpatosveterans.html#unumbbc), from 2007, which identified Unum Provident Insurance as a discredited corporate insurance giant, are, at this time, unknown.

(as of 25th August 2011)

                  In loving memory of Eileen Nearne, a WWII hero betrayed by her country.
                    Daily Mail - WW11 spy Eileen Nearne died penniless British pension halted

       "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
                                       Edmund Burke

                   "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
                                       John Pilger

                     ".never underestimate the power of persistence."
                                      Nelson Mandela

Mrs S..., War Pensioner (WRAF), Retired health professional Additional edit - 15th March 2011

Internet research references include:

 www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html 
 www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html 
 www.healthcarecommission.org.uk  (ceased operations March 2009) 
 www.cqc.org.uk (Care Quality Commission)
 www.justice2008.co.uk/MedicalServices.aspx  
 www.tribunals.gov.uk/Tribunals/About/president.htm
 www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/conduct-ethics/civil-service.aspx
 www.facoccmed.ac.uk/contact/index.jsp 
 www.dwpexamination.wordpress.com 
 www.veterans-uk.support
 www.disabilityalliance.org 
 www.stevewebb.org.uk/news2009/news1062.html  
 www.stevewebb.org.uk/news2009/1101.html   
 www.manchestermule.com/article/incapacity-benefit-claimants-under-scrutiny-in-fitness 
 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/313/31305.htm 
 www.sunderlandwelfareaction.wordpress.com/tag/medical-assessments 
 www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/atos_medical_examination_falsify 
 www.cas.org.uk (Citizens Advice Scotland) 
 www.citizensadvice.org.uk  
 www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/news-archive/156-gmc-u-turn-no-one-watches-dwp-doctors.html  
 www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10429/first-unum.html  
 www.cardiff.ac.uk/medic/contractsandpeople/a/aylward-mansel-prof-overview-new.html
 www.theforgottenheroes.co.uk
 www.parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmworpen
 www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/14/disabled-people-sickness-benefit 
 www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/mar/23/employment-support-allowance-incapacity-benefit
 www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1015950.stm 
 www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/fees/medicalservicesdoctors.jsp
 www.gmc-org.uk
 www.nhs.uk/serviceddirectories/Pages/Hospital.aspx?id=ntj&page=2&v=4
 www.atoshealthcare.com 

Research references from published reports include:

1) Decision Making & Appeals in the Benefits System - 2nd Report of Session 2009-10
     House of Commons Work & Pensions Committee  
2) Appeal Tribunals Annual Government Report 2007-08
     HH Judge Robert Martin - President of the Appeal Tribunals  
3) Appeal Tribunals Annual Government Report 2008-09
     HH Judge Robert Martin - President of the Appeal Tribunals

ENCLOSURES:

1) Appeals President slams DWP and ATOS
     President of Appeals Tribunal - Judge Robert Martin - Press, July 2008
2) Royal Mail Group & DWP win Occupational Health safety awards as 
     presented by ATOS HEALTHCARE
     www.atoshealthcare.com/UserFiles/File/-in-the-press/2010/pr_rospa_may10_v8.pdf
3) George  Osborne hints at further cuts in welfare budget
     Patrick Wintour - Political Editor - The Guardian
     www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/24/george-osborne-pension-welfare-disability
4) GMC U-turn: no-one watches DWP doctors - 15th March 2006
     www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/news-archive/156-gmc-u-turn-no-one-watches-dwp-doctors 
5) DWP ESA Medical Examinations
     www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html
6) DWP MENTAL HEALTH TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
     www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/tpca.pdf  (INCLUDES UNUM PROVIDENT REPRESENTATIVES)

Selection of Letters/documents written by Mrs S...:

1) Reply to the letter from Commercial Directorate Medical Services 
   - 23rd June & 28th June 2010
2) RAFA Report - 6th February 2010
3) Letters to Dr P Kitchen, SPVA  -  20th Jan, 15th Feb, 18th June 2010
4) Letter to Mr B Pepper, Atos Healthcare - 1st March 2010
5) Letter to Dr Beswick, Atos Healthcare  - 7th June 2010
6) Letter to Jon Parkin, Exec Director SPVA - 24th Jan 2011

Selection of Letters/documents received by Mrs S...:

1) Letter from Commercial Directorate Medical Services - John Murphy
     DWP Correspondence Manager response to complaint 
     - overwhelming support for Atos Healthcare - 21st June 2010
2) Collection of emails between Dr D Beswick, MD Atos Healthcare & Dr P Kitchen, SPVA
     dated between 22nd Jan - 5th February 2010  as eventually supplied via Contract Manager. 
     Overwhelming support for AH
3) Letter from Dr P Kitchen - still claiming innocence and confirming that ATOS would 
     not have conducted an inquiry without his input - 17th June 2010
4) Letter from Mr Brian Pepper, Adminstrator Atos Healthcare - 11th June 2010

SUGGESTED ESSENTIAL FURTHER READING:

1)  Medical Services Complaints
      www.justice2008.co.uk/MedicalServices.aspx
2)  Is Labour abolishing illness?
      Alison Ravetz - Proffesor Emeritus of Leeds Metropolitan University
      www.newstatesman.com/print/200805010024
3)  Clinic faces new investigation
      Angela Saini - BBC Correspondent
      www.bbc.co.uk
4)  NHS choices: Patient Feedback on Atos Healthcare
      www.nhs.uk/serviceddirectories/Pages/Hospital.aspx?id=ntj&page=2&v=4
5)  Atos Healthcare: Claimants, Patient Comment, Our Performance
      www.atoshealthcare.com
6)  WPC East Midlands minutes, 30th August 2007
      www.veterans-uk.support
7)  Civil Service conduct & guidance - hospitality received by departmental board members
      www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/conduct-ethics/civil-service.aspx 
8)  New benefit system labelled unfit - BBC Scotland investigation
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10159717.stm
9)  New benefits "have caused misery" - Citizens Advice Scotland - major report
      http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/83269
10) Comments from former Atos medical staff
      www.dwpexamination.wordpress.com
11) Testing times for disabled people by Guy Packar
      www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/14/disabled-people-sickness-benefit

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The author wishes to thank the parents of the disabled child, highlighted in this report, for their kind permission to expose their experiences within this document.

The author acknowledges with very grateful thanks the help, advice and support of Mr B..., especially for his permission to highlight his tragic personal circumstances and to freely refer to information from his outstanding website: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html

Grateful thanks to Dr Stephen Hall for his assistance with the compilation of this report and the author further acknowledges technical support from Mr Guven Dalsar, together with the information contained within the many websites visited during detailed research over initial 9 month period.

ABBREVIATIONS:

 BMA   -  British Medical Association
 CAB   -  Citizens Advice Bureau, 
 DLA   -  Disabled Living Allowance,  
 DWP   -  Department for Work & Pensions,  
 GMC   -  General Medical Council,  
 ID    -  Identity, 
 RAFA  -  The Royal Air Force Association,  
 RBL   -  Royal British Legion
 SPVA  -  Service Pensions & Veterans Agency,
 WPC   -  War Pensions Committee

NB: UNUM change their name over time and were previously known as "First Unum" and "UnumProvident".

WELFARE REFORM - REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED

A confidential independent report by Mrs S...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This detailed evidence report is offered to members of the House of Lords as a contribution to the delayed debate on Welfare Reform, now planned for September 13th, and was prepared at the personal invitation of noble members from the House.

As a retired Healthcare Professional I have invested in excess of 12 months of my time, health permitting, to investigate the relationship between the American insurance corporate giant UNUM Insurance, the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) and Atos Healthcare (AH). AH is the private contractor engaged by the DWP to conduct the medical assessments of the chronically sick and long-term disabled population of the UK, who are in receipt of disability benefits, yet this company is not regulated by the Care Quality Commission and so the public have no protection. The parent company, Atos Origin – another foreign corporate giant – have been awarded several significant government contracts, including the very lucrative IT contract for the 2012 Olympic Games, that the government ensured was awarded as part of "fair and open competition."

It is cause for enormous concern that, when engaged as UK government advisers on welfare reform, in 1994, Unum Insurance were known as Unum Provident Insurance. This corporate insurance giant dominates the income protection (disability) insurance market, worldwide, with 25 million clients in the US alone. Unum Provident Insurance have a diabolical reputation, with strong evidence of atrocious tactics, and a resistance to funding the income protection insurance once a client made a claim following the onset of chronic ill health or permanent disability. (A*)

By 2005, following copious numbers of successful legal cases throughout the USA, the California Department of Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi, stated that "Unum Provident is an outlaw company. It is a company that has operated in an illegal fashion for years..." By 2007, the American Association for Justice identified Unum Provident as "..the second worst insurance company in the US."(5) Therefore, given this company's proven record of sustained misconduct, one must surely enquire why they were ever permitted to be involved with the welfare of British citizens on a statutory basis.

Following the statement by the American Association for Justice in 2007 Unum Provident Insurance once again changed its name and is now known as Unum Insurance. Unum Insurance deny culpability for the past history of the company and, mysteriously, the majority of the evidence of past wrongdoing by Unum Provident Insurance has disappeared from the public domain, including the transcript of a BBC News report, from 2007, happily rescued from obscurity by researchers who predicted that the UK was at risk of adopting a copy of the American healthcare system, funded by insurance. With the latest press release from Unum Insurance, announcing that they are about to flood the UK market with mass marketing for income protection insurance, it looks like this is about to become a reality.

EXTRACT FROM BBC REPORT: UNUM PROVIDENT - BBC News 10pm 6th November 2007:

Mark Daly, presenter: But, there are still dozens of bad faith cases and allegations outstanding against the company on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite all of this Unum had senior executives sitting on key government working groups last year, and has provided detailed memorandum on transforming the benefits system. (The government also awarded grants worth £300,000 to Unum's research centre in Cardiff. See transcript below).

Mark Daly, presenter: The BBC has discovered internal documents revealing that Unum believes it is driving Government policy. The Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment on Unum's past.

WELFARE REFORM - REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED – THE REPORT

The government's devotion to its main priority, which is a dramatic reduction of the welfare budget, has meant that the concerns of respected frontline charities such as Citizens Advice(1), Macmillan(2), Scope(3), and the Disability Alliance(4) are all seemingly ignored. These welfare organisations, and many others, have collectively expressed serious concerns regarding growing evidence that the disability assessment system, using the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), is flawed and totally unworkable - but the government doesn't appear to be listening. On this basis there is a legal challenge now being undertaken by the Disability Alliance, which may lead to a Judicial Review of the government's welfare reforms. Government concern expressed for the welfare of the chronically sick and disabled people of this nation can only be considered to be totally insincere when employing the services of Atos Healthcare (AH) to assess them. Indeed, the assessment of the long term sick and disabled population by a private contractor with no formal accountability structure, using computer software instead of a detailed physical examination, has been identified as unnecessarily traumatic.(1-4,7) This dangerously flawed medical assessment system uses a computer questionnaire, based on a points system, as recommended by government advisers Unum (Provident). Why does a UK government use a discredited US corporate insurance giant as advisers if not to adopt their system?

Successful government propaganda has the able bodied general public convinced that the majority of people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit(IB) or Disability Living Allowance(DLA) are mainly ‘scroungers.' This is despite the fact that all evidence supports the fact that, out of the entire DLA budget, less than 0.5% were bogus applications with 1.5% admin error.(1,4) So why do the other 98% need to suffer other than because the chronically sick and disabled population make very easy targets? Since when is the opinion of medical experts, namely consultants and specialists in the relevant fields of the claimants' disability, unacceptable as a level of a patient's ability to work other than when the DWP need to reduce costs? This is a very dangerous and medically unacceptable precedent, imported from America, that has administrators without relevant qualifications and an unaccountable medical assessment system deciding the fate of often desperately ill and chronically disabled people. Many people in receipt of DLA do work as the award of DLA is unrelated to employment, but they work because they are well enough to engage in employment, and not when forced to look for employment by DWP medical tyranny because Job Seekers Allowance is much cheaper to fund than disability benefits.

The DWP's resistance to employing qualified medical administrators has meant that basic grade administrators, known as "Decision Makers", who have confirmed that they lack the ability to interpret medical evidence,(7) have betrayed the sick and disabled people the WCA was meant to protect. The actual disability assessment, as reported by the AH contracted healthcare professional (HCP), is simply one extremely limited opinion derived from a dubious computer evaluation programme, as confirmed in the WCA review by Professor Harrington.(7) The main responsibility of the DWP Decision Makers, as identified in the government contract with Atos Origin Healthcare Services, is to correlate all presented medical evidence including the detailed reports of GPs and consultants, who know the claimant and have actually treated them. Given that the opinions of these medical specialists are accepted in every court in the land, it seems more than reasonable to consider their clinical judgement when deciding if anyone is fit to return to work or to retain disability benefits.

However, the Harrington Review (7) confirmed that Decision Makers routinely failed in their responsibility and exclusively accepted the opinion of the contracted HCP from Atos Healthcare, who enjoy "total immunity from all medical regulation" according to the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Care Quality Commission.(6) Because of this, large numbers of chronically sick and genuinely disabled people are being forced to appeal the often alarming decisions of under qualified junior civil servants.(1-4) Welfare agencies now advise that nothing has improved since the Harrington review, hence the challenge by the Disability Alliance.

This deeply flawed medical assessment process was identified for a long time by His Honour Judge Robert Martin as President of the Appeal Tribunals. For over a decade Judge Martin's consecutive annual reports constantly identified serious problems with the AH medical assessments (8). Indeed, Judge Martin was insistent that "..the same problems and errors are repeated year after year, with no sign that anyone takes any notice of feedbacks from Tribunals" as confirmed in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee.(9) The evidence confirmed that almost half of the Appeal Tribunals find in favour of the applicant (9) with 70% of claims being upheld for claimants who have representation at the Appeal Tribunal.(10) However, the stress and distress of the need to wait for several months to attend an appeal, in order to retain financial support to which these claimants are morally entitled, is totally ignored. If these were civil cases, generous compensation would be offered as an acknowledgement of the unnecessary distress and suffering caused to the many victims. However, all successful applicants can expect is a reluctant reinstatement of their disability payments, and a back dated award to when they were forced to accept Jobseekers Allowance instead of Incapacity Benefit or, more recently, the new Employment Support Allowance.(ESA) DWP letters to their many victims remain unnecessarily hostile and the enforced disability debt is an ever growing problem. These victims of this AH assessment system loose their disability funding instantly, when they fail to obtain the necessary points at assessment. Yet their DLA payments are already committed to fund their Motability car or to identify the need for essential home care as provided by local authorities. This is brutal, and these consequences appear to be dimissed by the government.

With plans to rapidly transfer Incapacity Benefit to the new ESA and DLA being renamed and reallocated to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), all reference to incapacity or disability is being systematically removed. How can a chronically sick and/or disabled person, who will never again be fit enough for paid employment, be allocated a benefit named Employment Support Allowance when employment is not a realistic possibility? How does this support anyone with a permanent serious illness or profound disability? What happened to welfare? The Minister for Welfare Reform happened to welfare... and it is cause for serious concern that the input of this one unelected official can threaten the welfare provision for millions with care, concern and compassion replaced with a price tag (11).

The Minister made his intentions clear in a press interview (11) in 2008 when he claimed that: "... somebody will see a gap in the market and make their fortune" and the article went on to claim that the Minister's idea was to eventually put the private sector in charge of the long-term unemployed. "There will be bonuses for hard cases, and no special treatment of disabled people or lone parents with children at school."(11) As Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud's past history in finance demonstrates a dangerous lack of any comprehension that a serious illness or chronic disability can indeed be permanent, hence past awards of DLA offered to recipients who, by definition and especially by diagnosis, are profoundly disabled or very ill. These conditions can be exacerbated by exhaustion that often accompanies chronic ill health and serious disability. American style medical tyranny can't make them well, and can't make these genuine claimants fit for work, but constant threats of losing their financial support can and does cause unnecessary distress.

Now, the most vulnerable people in our society, already faced with a limited quality of life, are being terrorised by the DWP with the threat of an annual review of their DLA financial support, despite their confirmed and permanent illness and/or physical limitations. Any annual assessment is therefore, by definition, a total waste of limited resources for the vast majority of these people. The sudden removal of DLA may remove a Motability car, or funding for taxis, and may remove the County Council funded home carers as County Councils will not provide carers unless the client is in receipt of DLA for care at the highest level. Any AH assessment is simply one day in the life of the disabled claimant, and cannot be presumed to identify their permanent state of health. Government claims that AH assessments are to establish ability, and not to emphasise disability, whilst demonstrating a dangerous lack of concern for identified consequences is offensive to many.

Urgent decisions need to be made to enable justice to be seen to be done.

SUMMARY

The DWP should employ qualified Medical Administrators, as real Decision Makers, who will comprehend when a given diagnosis means that the patient is far too ill or profoundly disabled to ever consider paid employment. They would even comprehend that the majority of chronic disability and ill health are, by their definition, variable conditions, and therefore it is absurd to expect such people to be fit enough to look for paid employment, only to become too ill to work within a short period of time. Not only would Medical Administrators be able to remove the totally unnecessary distress faced by the innocent victims of this assessment process, but it would also save a great deal of money by greatly reducing the numbers of people going to these AH assessments and, hence, reduce the numbers of Appeal Tribunals. Any increases in salary costs will be negated by the very significant savings from the reduced costs of tribunals and appeals, as well as the reduced requirement for continued reassessment in many cases. It would also remove the distress now faced by this vulnerable community.

The DWP can then either cancel this fatally flawed disability assessment contract with AH, or introduce a generous compensation scheme. There are now many thousands of genuine chronically sick and/or seriously disabled victims of this DWP funded medical tyranny, masquerading as medical assessments, as conducted by Atos Healthcare following guidance by Unum Insurance, formerly known as the totally discredited American corporate giant Unum Provident Insurance.

It is no coincidence that Unum Insurance are about to launch a massive UK media campaign to promote their Income Protection Insurance as, clearly, it has been planned since 1994 as the UK takes another step forward towards the American style health service, funded by insurance. (12)

Costs can't be the only concern in any civilized society. Care, concern and compassion must be returned to the UK to arrest tyranny, using foreign companies, against those least able to find social justice. 5000 disabled people and carers didn't march in London for no reason, and it's time someone listened to them.

More detailed information may be found in a book by Ray Bourhis, namely Insult to Injury: Insurance, Fraud and the Big Business of Bad Faith, published in 2005, and in the published papers at the Yale School of Law: The Unum Provident Scandal. (13)

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired health professional - 5th September 2011

(A*) New York Attorney General Spitzer's ruling:
     www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/unum-settlement.html
(1)  Citizens Advice:
     www.citizensadvice.org.uk/not_working_march_2010_final.pdf
(2)  Macmillan: 
     www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/GetInvolved/Campaigns/Benefits/FailedByTheSystemReport.pdf
(3)  Scope: 
     www.Scope.org.uk/sites/default/files/counting_the_cost.pdf
(4)  Disability Alliance:
     www.disabilityalliance.org/dbcpress3.htm
(5)  unumclaimsdenial.com/2011/07/unum-ranked-2nd-worst-insurance-company-in-america
(6)  Care Quality Commission: 
     www.cqc.org.uk/aboutcqc.cfm
(7)  The Harrington WCA Review:
     www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf
(8)  HH Judge Robert Martin: President of Appeal Tribunals, Report 2007-08
(9)  Decision making and appeals in the benefit system. 
     Second Report of Session 2009-10
     - the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select committee:
     www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/313/313.pdf
(10) Citizens Advice Scotland: Unfit for purpose:
     www.cas.org.uk/Publications/publications/Evidence+reports/unfit-for-purpose
(11) Welfare is a mess, says adviser David Freud:
     www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1577313/Welfare-is-a-mess-says-adviser-David-Freud.html
     The Daily Telegraph – 2nd February 2008. 
     David Freud interview with Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson
(12) www.ifaonline.co.uk/cover/news/2083156/unum-unveils-consumer-campaign
(13) digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=fss_papers&
     seiredir=1#search=%22Yale%20Law%20School%3A%20Unum%20Provident%20Scandal%22
    

Huw Edwards, anchor: A multinational insurance company accused of racketeering and cheating thousands of Americans out of welfare benefits, is giving advice to the British government on welfare reform. A BBC investigation has found that executives from Unum have held meetings with senior Whitehall officials to discuss changes to the benefit system. Mark Daly has this exclusive report:

Mark Daly, presenter: US-based multi-national insurance giant, Unum, has shown a keen interest in UK welfare reform since the mid 1990s. This is Unum's HQ in Portland in Maine. Unum are the world's largest disability insurers, with more than 25 million customers in the US alone. But in 2002, a series of whistle blowers came forward with damning allegations. Linda Nee was a claims handler for UnumProvident, as it was called then.

Linda Nee: I was often placed in the position by a consultant, who was my supervisor, of denying a claim. Of telling me to deny a claim, or having a manager tell me to remove documentation from a claim so that an attorney would not have an opportunity to see it.

Mark Daly, presenter: It was alleged that UnumProvident cheats tens of thousands of disabled Americans out of their rightful benefit claims. Many of them came from California. Joan Hangarter had her own business before falling ill.

Joan Hangarter: An impartial, unanimous jury of 12 people found that Unum had wrongfully terminated my benefits. They had lied, they had cheated, they had misrepresented the facts.

Mark Daly, presenter: She was awarded $7.5million in damages but allegations of racketeering persisted. Then, in 2005, insurance commissioner John Garamendi declared: "UnumProvident is an outlaw company. It is a company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion." In a unique settlement signed by all 50 States, it was fined $23million USD, ordered to reopen 300,000 denied claims at a cost of half a billion dollars. (Denied claims still not reinvestigated as of Oct 2010. [Editor])

Peter Dewis, Unum Customer Services: I think the important thing to recognise is that those issues that were found in relation to the US claims management practices now belong to history. They were critically reviewed when the regulatory findings came out, a number of very important changes have been made. In the UK we reviewed all of our claims management practices and found ourselves not to be wanting in relation to anything that the US regulators were saying.

Mark Daly, presenter: But, there are still dozens of bad faith cases and allegations outstanding against the company on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite all of this Unum had senior executives sitting on key government working groups last year, and has provided detailed memorandum on transforming the benefits system. The government also awarded grants worth £300,000 to Unum's research centre in Cardiff.

Ian Gibson MP: I think the government should have them in front of them in an open scrutiny process in Parliament, and we should ask them what their game is. Why it happened in the States first, could not happen here if they have still got the same philosophy. There is some indication now that they haven't changed that much. The leopard hasn't changed it's spots.

Mark Daly, presenter: The BBC has discovered internal documents revealing that Unum believes it is driving Government policy. The Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment on Unum's past. A spokesman said: "Throughout the process of developing our policies.. Ministers and officials have met and spoken to hundreds of organisations and individuals like Unum to find out what works." As Unum attempt to leave its chequered past behind, the debate over UK welfare reform will rage on.

Mark Daly - BBC News

NB: This transcript was removed from the BBC website and a copy of which was provided by a national disability charity. [Editor]

THE TRUTH BEHIND WELFARE REFORMS

A summary of research by Mrs S...:

• ATOS HEALTHCARE OR DISABILITY DENIAL FACTORIES - 30TH JUNE 2010

• WELFARE REFORM – REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED – 5TH SEPT 2011

As a medically retired healthcare professional, and a disabled female veteran in receipt of a War Pension, little did I know that a medical review of my pension would offer access to the suspect workings of Atos Healthcare whose parent company, Atos Origin, are IT specialists - with no previous experience in healthcare - but with a very lucrative government contract for the IT coverage of the 2012 Olympic Games....

In brief, a staff member from Atos Healthcare made a domiciliary visit, claimed to be a doctor yet refused, three times, to provide any form of ID to a lone, disabled female. This young doctor then proceeded to create a totally bogus medical report, claiming to have conducted a medical examination when no such examination was conducted, whilst refusing eye contact and treating me with utter contempt. Needless to say I was not impressed and, two years later, my subsequent research reports are now being quoted during the ongoing welfare reform debates in the House of Lords.

My initial research investigated Atos Origin Medical Services, otherwise known as Atos Healthcare, as I struggled to deal with the fact that the visiting Atos doctor was the most unethical medical professional I had ever met. Deep research exposed the reality, which is that Atos Origin Medical Services are a replica of the assessment system used by American corporate insurance giant Unum Provident Insurance, now known as Unum Insurance and, notoriously, the 2nd most discredited insurance company in America. They are powerful, untouchable and in the UK to destroy our welfare system at the invitation of successive British governments.

Detailed research exposed the reality of the government imposed medical assessment system, using Atos Healthcare and the LiMA computer software, that isn't fit for purpose, and numerous very detailed reports from the national charities that were all totally ignored. Together with ignoring the many reports from these national institutions, successive governments also ignored all recommendations from ten consecutive annual reports from His Honour Judge Robert Martin when President of the Appeal Tribunals, that all condemned the Atos medicals, together with totally ignoring all recommendations from successive Work and Pensions Select Committees. Due to the growing public outrage the government finally offered a token gesture in the form of an Emeritus Professor, Professor Malcolm Harrington, and his annual report recommendations are the only recommendations that the government reluctantly accept. Yet, twelve months following the Professor's initial report, there has been no improvement in the unacceptable experiences of patients who must tolerate an assessment by this private company that remains totally free from all public scrutiny, by either the General Medical Council (GMC) or the Care Quality Commission. The only redress for the victims of this government imposed medical tyranny is to personally report a named doctor to the GMC, who will only accept complaints against Atos medical staff if the assessment decision has been overturned at Appeal.... www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html refers

Unum Insurance have been government advisers since 1994, their memorandums to government committees have been adopted verbatum for the ongoing welfare reforms, and this country is on route to American style welfare, funded by insurance, as Unum Insurance now flood the UK market with mass marketing for their Income Protection Insurance as the DWP remove welfare support:

• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/3021203/htm (Dec 02)

• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmworpen/616/616we37.htm (Mar 06) refers.

Mrs S..., 20th November 2011

Dr Paul Kitchen                                       15th February 2010
Deputy Head of Veterans Medical Services              MEDICAL IN CONFIDENCE
Room 6403
Thornton-Cleveleys
Lancashire
FY5 3WP

Dear Dr Kitchen

Re: serious complaint

I confirm I have now received your letter of 8th February, together with a letter from Brian Pepper, the National Customer Relations Manager for ATOS Healthcare, dated 9th February, and that both letters contain apologies for the undoubted stress and significant distress I have endured since the visit to my home by Dr B... in December 2008.

I am very pleased to know that, since I brought my serious complaint to your attention, you have concluded that Dr B... will no longer be permitted to intimidate, insult or treat with utter contempt any other War Pensioners, so that is indeed a good start. However, I am concerned to learn that he is only prevented from visiting other veterans "...unless I give my personal approval." I am bound to wonder why you would consider giving your approval, at some time in the future, for this unethical young man to ever again report about other veterans?? I would have hoped that your first priority would be to re-visit all previous cases reported by this young man, to compare with the clinical evidence provided by the veteran and their medical team, as it is very unlikely that my case was the only misleading report written by Dr B.... He was very self-assured and seemed confident that anything he decided would be accepted verbatim - and it was. Perhaps, instead of making sure other veterans have not been similarly betrayed, you will now attempt to decide which veterans are medically trained, and could therefore realistically challenge this man's reports, before you give your approval? You surely can't blame me for being sceptical Dr Kitchen. Indeed, following my shocking experience, I remain concerned that this young man is still employed to freely write misleading reports about some of the most vulnerable people in society, and it is my strong contention that he is not fit to practice. Certainly, according to the information on the GMC website, Dr B... is neither registered as a GP or a specialist, in keeping with most of the doctors now involved with ATOS Healthcare, and that fact doesn't improve confidence.

I note with interest that you advise that, under these circumstances, you would usually request another medical 'examination' to be carried out but, in my case, this is no longer possible as this case is subject to judicial proceedings. I guess I am left wondering as to how many other veterans are put through months of trauma for daring to challenge the distorted medical opinion of a staff member from this private company? You should understand that under no circumstances would I allow another staff member from ATOS Healthcare to visit me, and to suggest otherwise demonstrates that you still fail to comprehend the serious significance of my experience. Quite simply Dr Kitchen, given my own personal experience, plus many hours of research, I don't trust ATOS Healthcare or their so-called 'medical professionals.'

Indeed, the approach of ATOS Healthcare show alarming similarities to that of UnumProvident (US) in that, in 2002, a class action lawsuit charged UnumProvident (now First Unum or Unum) with operating "disability denial factories." (Does this sound familiar Dr Kitchen?) The company also faced thousands of lawsuits filed by individuals who were denied disability claims. Despite jury verdicts against the insurer (in January 2003, a California jury reached a US$31.7 million award against UnumProvident and, two years later, the California Department of Insurance fined the company US$8 million because it "misinterpreted job classifications, improperly overruled doctors' opinions and knowingly used incorrect insurance definitions to avoid paying benefits"), Unum continues bad faith insurance practices. Unum Group (formerly UnumProvident) holds about one quarter of the disability insurance market in the US, making it one of the largest providers of group disability insurance in the country. In 2004 and 2005, regulators ordered Unum to re-evaluate thousands of denied claims. According to the LA Times (April 12, 2007), the company reviewed less than 10% of the 290,000 claims eligible for review and, potentially, re-instatement of benefits. Then we find evidence of UnumProvident at work in the UK...

UnumProvident Centre (UK): UnumProvident Centre provides funding for Psychosocial and Disability Research based at Cardiff University. The Director of the Centre is Professor Mansel Aylward. He is the former Chief Medical Advisor at the DWP, he was instrumental in the DWP accepting the UnumProvident concepts applied in the US and was influential in how the Welfare Reform Act should be implemented. It is believed that the UnumProvident Centre has been one of the leading forces in trying to make it harder for allowances to be paid to the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. Staff from UnumProvident were important in the design of the Personal Capability Assessment and of the new, much harsher Work Capability Assessment required if an Employment and Support Allowance is to be paid (not unlike a War Pension in fact.) Professor Aylward continues to be involved in research for the DWP and he has provided support for Dame Carol Black, proponent of the replacement sick-notes with "well-notes." (Good grief!!) The allowance paid for ESA(C) is just under £90 per week. The current "National Minimum Wage", set in October 2009, is £5.80 per hour. If a 40 hour week is worked the weekly pay, before tax and NI, would be £232. The unemployed dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers have to live on just under £90 per week and, for this amount, have to attend repeated assessments and "pathways" meetings. (And that presumes they actually survive the medical assessment without trauma.)

UnumProvident in the UK: The key phrase is "The UK market is still underdeveloped..." In the USA individual states have a Department of Insurance to protect people from unfair business practices. Perhaps the UK needs a similar body to protect people from similar unfair business practices? In 1990 Unum acquired the National Employers Life Assurance Co. Ltd., the largest disability provider in the UK. Thomas R Watjen, UnumProvident Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer reported to stockholders in Portland, Maine (May 17, 2006) advising that the future holds great promise... adding that the company was poised to capitalize on opportunities in the United Kingdom, where UnumProvident is the largest provider of group disability insurance. "The U.K. market is still in many respects underdeveloped, with less than 10% of employers offering group disability coverage. As the market leader, UnumProvident is in a unique position to help educate buyers to the need for this coverage." Private equity funds interested in the health care services market are likely to have significant Atos Origin and Unum holdings. (All details can be found at: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusiness.html )

A number of Honourable MPs have asked questions in Parliament to draw attention to the abuse of the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers, but the system in place is very cost effective for the government, no-one seems to be listening to the growing mountain of concerns and overwhelming evidence is ignored. The balance sheet would appear to be of much greater importance than the welfare of the patients, the clients, the claimants or the victims of ATOS Healthcare but, one thing is for sure, none of us are "customers" of this company Dr Kitchen, and it is way past time when this dangerous situation was challenged effectively. Indeed, ATOS Healthcare break the contract they have with the government on a daily basis but who is actually monitoring this private agency, who is actually accountable to no one?

Given the alarming similarities to UnumProvident, one must wonder as to why this company were elected to undertake government medicals? Of course, if the government's intention is to provide doctors willing to provide misleading medical reports about sick and disabled people, who are ill equipped to challenge their deliberately bogus reports, then the system would appear to have worked so far since, clearly, the company don't employ high calibre staff. Indeed, I suggest you recall the evidence I provided about my friend's profoundly disabled little boy, so I think it is quite clear that this problem is not just limited to the SPVA or DWP medicals on adults but is quite universal. Indeed, it suggests to me, even a Physiotherapist was willing to betray her professional oath of office to compromise a profoundly disabled young child just to save government money, but one needs to enquire as to what pressure she was under to oblige her to compromise her professional ethics so badly? I repeat that I believe this is a calculated system that is very sinister, with press hysteria convincing the general public that all applicants are potential criminals, and I personally find that deeply offensive.

Please be further advised that the judge involved with this case has now invited my permission to actually conduct the appeal hearing at my home, given that I am not well enough to consider attending a hearing and, according to the last Appeal Tribunals Report of September 2009, appeals are twice as likely to be successful if the applicant appears at the appeal compared to when they don't. That detail is alarming for the most sick and disabled people, who are prevented from travelling any distance due to serious health problems. So it would seem that this system is guaranteed to be a disadvantage to the most sick and disabled people who need the most help. It's not really something to be proud about is it, or is the presumption perhaps that people choosing not to attend appeal hearings must all be bogus? Guilty until proven innocent does appear to be the philosophy at work here.

Of course, this could have all been prevented if the SPVA medical advisor, Dr I..., had conducted a reasonable assessment of all the detailed clinical evidence provided with my review request. Sadly, in reaction to my response documents, the advice written on 4th August 2009 by Dr I... ignored all the detailed evidence provided by both my GP and myself. Furthermore, Dr I... demonstrated that the provided and detailed evidence had been deliberately misinterpreted as the fact that I was suffering from the impact of the Menopause was mentioned and, clearly, this is unrelated to service. However, the onset of the Menopause caused the clinical depression that was freely admitted, but was possibly too much evidence for some doctors. This admission permitted the young Dr B...to arrive at my home with a pre-conceived diagnosis of depression, and his insistence that I was not permitted to speak freely meant I was unable to advise that the depression problem had happily been resolved, months before we met, due to the prescription of HRT. Indeed, as I predicted, this 'medical advisor' supported the information provided by the ATOS Healthcare report, which has since been demonstrated as failing "to meet professional standards" by the Medical Director of ATOS Healthcare. However, I prefer to acknowledge that report as being totally bogus given that NO MEDICAL took place. Furthermore, as of today's date, Dr I... is no longer listed on the GMC website, ?why. Indeed, testimony from former medical staff of ATOS Healthcare makes interesting and compulsive reading, including the many meetings they had about reaching targets, resisting medical evidence from the claimants and the fact that patient welfare was never a consideration... These doctors left ATOS Healthcare because they weren't prepared to compromise their medical ethics, in support of a profit margin, to the detriment of the sick and disabled people they examined. Check out the Internet Dr Kitchen as I think you could learn a lot....

Quite clearly, this crude and dangerous system to reduce care costs from the most vulnerable was under consideration for a long time, given that the content of the medical report forms were altered between my previous reviews from 2006 and 2008. On the 2006 printed report form there is a question, which invites the examining doctor to advise if his medical findings confirmed evidence reported by the claimant and their doctors and, in my case, this was confirmed at my 2006 review medical. That detail alone should confirm that neither my doctor nor I feel the need to exaggerate the deterioration in my health, yet this does seem to have been presumed for the 2008 review. In the 2008 printed report form that question no longer exists. Even more sinister is the DWP contract with ATOS Healthcare, freely available on the Internet, which identifies my worst fears by confirming that the ONLY medical evidence to be considered seriously is the contents of the reports from the medical staff of the contracted agency, who are instructed to ignore medical evidence from the claimants....! Therefore, no matter how much detailed medical evidence is provided by the claimant, it will all be ignored as agreed by the government! How very convenient from a government that has bankrupted this country and now intends to steal money from helpless and disabled victims to help balance the books. With government ministers, the BMA and the SPVA all claiming that "vexatious" complaints were to be expected, given that ATOS Healthcare staff would use their 'professional expertise' to advise about health, which could adversely impact on claimants' finances, it's little wonder that doctors employed by ATOS Healthcare seem to believe that they can't ever be seriously challenged. The usual common courtesies, respect and human kindness expected from all health professionals have been exchanged for a balance sheet. Human Rights are displaced and the need for compassion, and the dignity of the patient, is totally disregarded. The sick, the disabled and now the dying are victims of this systematic medical abuse of power, and intimidation and bullying are tactics used to silence the victims of this government tyranny.

Shocked by the unexpected totally unacceptable, unprofessional and unethical conduct of the visiting doctor, who was representing the SPVA as far as I was concerned, I have spent some time researching to whom this medical agency is accountable. In both the NHS and the private medicine sectors, patients have the opportunity to complain to an independent agency when things go wrong, and it is a safety measure necessary in all types of medicine - or so I thought. For the NHS there is the Patients' Liaison Committee and the NHS Ombudsman etc and, for the private sector, there is the Independent Health Agency or the Care Quality Commission yet, according to all these agencies, ATOS Healthcare is "not in their remit." So, I say again Dr Kitchen, the SPVA are placing the welfare of our disabled servicemen and service women into the hands of a medical agency that is totally unaccountable, and I'm just wondering if the government actually know this rather diabolical fact?

The resistance to believing my detailed clinical evidence, over the past 14 months, is testimony to a very sinister reality. Given that I had the reported opinions of no fewer than 4 doctors from ATOS Healthcare before my evidence was reluctantly accepted - no doubt in the hope of finally silencing me - I believe does demonstrate this sinister reality Dr Kitchen, and one which it is way past time that SPVA investigated properly. If I had accepted the opinion of Dr K I would have been no further forward, and the dramatic increases in my disabilities would still not be acknowledged. ATOS Healthcare claims that any discovered inaccuracies "...will be reported.." to the office dealing with the claims of their (victims) claimants yet, despite the fact that Dr L... did confirm significant omissions from the last medical review in a letter dated 16th December 2009, the company still failed to act on her findings until I made further contact in a letter dated 16th January this year. If I hadn't written to them again I doubt they would have brought their conclusions to your attention. My letter to the company in January coincided with me bringing these serious concerns to your attention and now, finally, the company's Medical Director, Dr David Beswick, has at least confirmed that the medical report of December 2008 fails to meet professional standards; which is a reluctant acceptance of my concerns yet totally ignores all reports regarding the unprofessional and unethical conduct of Dr B.... I can only hope that the medical conducted by the Tribunal doctor - who will no doubt be much more qualified compared to the doctor I met from ATOS Healthcare - will suffice to confirm testimony from both my doctor and myself. I maintain that the able bodied have little comprehension of disability, living with increasing pain levels or the impact on daily life, and it is long overdue when a doctor claiming to be the Deputy Head of Veterans Medical Services should start believing the veterans, instead of supporting claims from a private medical agency with a dubious reputation. Someone needs to challenge this government tyranny, masquerading as welfare reforms, and members of the public need to be informed about the intimidation tactics used on some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Who's helping them Dr Kitchen??

Understand me please when I tell you that the press hysteria regarding so called bogus benefit claims are greatly exaggerated, and all available evidence suggests that bogus claims are no more than 2% of the total DWP budget. Indeed, anyone making a bogus claim can't be living too well given that the amounts involved are minimal, making financial survival just possible, but it's not exactly good living is it? Also, you need to make sure that the medical team at ATOS Healthcare fully comprehend that a War Pension IS NOT a benefit, it is awarded to veterans following military service to this country, and staff at ATOS Healthcare need to stop causing enormous offence by referring to War Pensions as benefit claims! They do appear to be slow learners, as I have imparted this information several times, and I refer you to the exchanges of letters between myself and Brian Pepper, previously provided.

When it comes to offering ID, the Police insist that stranger entry should not be permitted without photographic ID, especially for disabled women living alone. Indeed, the only reason this can't be enforced is because it is not yet the law of the land. Dr L.., of ATOS Healthcare, now trying to insist that a distant name badge attached to a staff member standing 10 feet away from the claimant is satisfactory is, frankly, nonsense, and I would hope that the SPVA took the security of its pensioners a lot more seriously than demonstrated by this company.

In conclusion Dr Kitchen, I am left wondering ? where exactly is your support for this nation's War Pensioners whose honesty, integrity and courage are far in excess of most civilians I suggest. When does the SPVA actually start offering concerned support for our disabled veterans, instead of hiding behind the seemingly unlimited power of ATOS Healthcare?

I make no apology for the length of this letter, or the details contained within it, and I trust I may look forward to your considered reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely ... War Pensioner, Former medical professional

References:

• www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmworpen.htm
• www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html
• www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10429/first-unum.html
• Professor Aylward medicine.cf.ac.uk/en/person/prof-mansel-aylward/
• Centre for Psychosocial & Disability Research, Cardiff University medicine.cf.ac.uklink (medicine.cf.ac.uk/en/departments/primary-care-public-health/research/cpdr/)

Enclosures: p87 of Review documents - medical advisor's reasons

GMC listing for Dr B...

Department for Work and Pensions          Commercial Directorate

Mr John Murphy
Commercial Directorate Medical Services
Correspondence Manager
Commercial Management of Medical Services
DWP Room 36
Norcross Government Buildings
Norcross Lane, Thornton
Lancashire  FY5 3TA

Dear Mrs S...

Further to my letter of the 19th of April 2010 where I advised you that I was awaiting further information from Atos Healthcare to ensure that I could supply you with a formal and informed response. Atos Healthcare has now provided the information I requested.

I would firstly like to apologise for the protracted length of time it has taken to respond to your original letter of 15th of February 2010 and your subsequent letter of the 22nd of April. Additionally, I would like to apologise unreservedly on behalf of Atos Healthcare for the delays, inconvenience and any upset that your have experienced as a result of your complaint against Atos Healthcare.

Having reviewed your case and the correspondence between yourself and Atos Healthcare it is clear to me that a resolution to your concerns could have been achieved at a much earlier date. I recognise that there has been a clear lack of coordination from the relevant Government Departments dealing with your complaint and had communications been more effective I believe you would have received a satisfactory answer much earlier.

Again I apologise that your complaint has not been handled as efficiently as I would have expected.

A copy of this letter will be provided to the Atos Heathcare Customer Relations Manager, Mr Brian Pepper, and ask that my comments are noted and that he address any underlying aspects of performance within his team that may have contributed to the delays.

I would also like to assure you that Mr Pepper has in no way attempted to bribe you with a consolatory offer of £200. Consolatory payments to customers have been agreed as part of the Medical Services Contract. Where it is recognised that customers have received a poor service from Atos Healthcare they are offered a consolatory payment to reflect any inconvenience or upset caused by their experience. This is also standard practise within Government Departments.

I have been advised that you have now received a copy of the investigation of your complaint which was completed by Dr David Beswick Director of Medical Services for Atos Healthcare and took the form of email correspondence to Dr Paul Kitchen of the SPVA. I fully appreciate that this has taken a considerable length of time to be sent to you and again offer my apologies for the undue delay.

I would like to now address your concerns that it would seem that Atos Healthcare can select parts of the contract to adhere to and systematically ignore other parts.

I would like to give you an absolute assurance that the contract between Atos Healthcare and the DWP, acting on behalf of SPVA, is monitored very closely by this team. Any breaches of contractual agreements are considered very serious and immediate action is taken to ensure compliance of all aspects of the contractual agreements.

Under this contract there is no actual requirement for Atos Healthcare to notify the Department, in this case SPVA, that they have received a complaint from a customer. However Atos Healthcare is contractually bound to provide management information on all complaints and the complaint itself must be retained on the individual Healthcare Professional's complaints record.

Atos Healthcare is contractually bound to report on the performance of all Healthcare Professionals and supply information to this team on request of all complaints pertaining to them.

Given the serious nature of your complaint I fully acknowledge that when you alerted Atos Healthcare that you would be contacting the SPVA then SPVA, this team and Atos Healthcare should have been liaising to ensure you received the appropriate level of customer service. I apologise that this was not the case.

With regard to the Healthcare Professional who visited you and the actions taken by Atos Healthcare regarding any internal disciplinary action. I can give you an assurance that the Atos Healthcare Medical Manager has interviewed Dr B... and has fully discussed all your concerns regarding his behaviour and documenting the clinical assessment's findings to avoid any possible misunderstanding of the examination, I am satisfied that Atos Healthcare has taken the appropriate management action with this particular Healthcare Professional on this occasion.

I am sure that you will understand that under the Data Protection Act I am unable to supply you of any further detail on any management action taken against an individual employee of Atos Healthcare as this is deemed, under the Data Protection Act, as personal data and I am not at liberty to ask the employer to provide this level of information.

I would like to now address your concerns relating to the contract instructing the contractor to resist any and all medical information. I can give you an absolute assurance that this is not the case. As part of the contract any medical evidence presented to a Healthcare Professional must be considered. Atos Healthcare's role is to provide independent objective medical advice about how a person is affected currently by their medical condition, further medical evidence from a health care provider and information from the claimant can be important in that process. The advice is formulated and provided in a relevant SPVA report using all available evidence, including history taking, observation, discussion about a typical day/activities and a relevant examination.

Any evidence that a customer would wish to have used in the decision making process has to be made available to the Decision Maker. Consequently, it is expected that examining Healthcare Professionals provide appropriate advice to any customer who informs them that they wish the Decision Maker to see copies of their medical reports.

When such medical reports are presented to the Healthcare Professional during the course of an assessment, it is expected that they look at these papers, provided that they are relevant to the functional assessment of the claimant's current condition.

I would like to add that under the contract Medicai services' Professional Standards require Healthcare Professionals to provide advice that is fair and impartial. Consequently, there is a requirement on them to ensure that all the factual information that they record is accurate. There is no advantage or incentive for the examining

Healthcare Professional to record information which, they know to be inaccurate. In fact it would be a serious breach of professional standards to do so.

I would now like to address your concerns over the reference to Judge Robert Martins' comments. It is inevitable because Atos Healthcare provides medical reports for DWP benefit claims and for SPVA pensions and allowances, that many appeals would contain reports produced by Atos Heathcare.

When an appeal is made, an independent tribunal panel decides whether the Decision Maker's determination is correct. The Appeal Tribunal will consider all the evidence afresh, as well as any additional evidence that has since been submitted by the claimant, and which was not available originally to the Decision Maker. The examination report therefore will be only one of the factors before the Tribunal.

Consequently, the presumption cannot be made that, when a Tribunal overturns a decision, it was due to a lack in the validity or accuracy of the examination report used in the decision making process.

The President of appeal tribunals also compiles an annual report on the standards of decision making by the Secretary of State, which is published. Through the course of the year the President also provides the Department with quarterly interim reports in order that early action can be taken to address any problems brought to his attention.

The quality and standards of medical reprts used in decision making are assessed in the sample of cases forming the basis of the reports. Medically qualified panel members report on areas such as how well issues were addressed in the medical report, how consistent the advice in the medical report was and how adequately that advice was justified. The estimate of the severity of the disability in question is also looked at together with the use of that medical evidence by the Decision Maker.

If a medical report is produced which, in the opinion of the medically qualified panel member, falls substantially below the Professional Standards expected, and gives cause for concern the report is referred to the Department's Chief Medical Adviser. The issue is then raised through Atos Healthcare with the Healthcare Professional concerned and remedial action taken where this is considered necessary.

Also, the Tribunal chair may refer reports directly to their Atos Healthcare Medical Manager where the advice is considered to be inaccurate or not in accordance with the consensus of medical opinion.

The issue is then raised directly with the Healthcare Professional concerned and remedial action taken where this is considered necessary.

Atos Healthcare provides information to this team on the number of such referrals made bi-annually. The last report for the period July - December 2009, indicated that, nationally, Atos Healthcare had only received six referrals from The Appeals Service. Information for the latest report (January - June 2010) is currently being collated.

I would like to assure you that all Atos Healthcare Professionals undertaking examinations for Atos Healthcare are continually monitored.

This quality assurance and control takes the form of random and targeted studies of completed reports. There is an ongoing training programme, which ensures that Healthcare Professional are kept fully informed of developments in their area of work including report completion.

As an addition to their formal training, Healthcare Professionals are also issued with copies of guidance appropriate to the Benefits(s) that they are trained in, which covers all aspects of the work.

Should any problems of quality of performance arise, further action will be taken. This action may involve appropriate retraining, closer monitoring or supervision or even termination of contract.

In addition all aspect of an Healthcare Professional's performance is monitored closely by this team and any concerns about the quality of Healthcare Professionals are discussed at a monthly Performance Review meetings.

With regard to your final point that Atos Healthcare is resisting investigating all other medical reports completed by the Healthcare Professional.

I have been advised that Mr Pepper notes that the Healthcare Professional's performance has been closely monitored by his Medical Manager with the involvement of Dr Beswick, Atos Healthcare's Medical Director.

I understand Atos Healthcare wrote to you on the 12th of May 2010 advising that that Dr Beswick has attempted to contact you by telephone to discuss your concerns and he has also offered to meet with you. Should you wish to take up this offer or feel that you would like a member of my team to be in attendance please let me know so that I can make the relevant arrangements.

I hope that explanation satisfactorily addresses the points in your letter.

Once again I offer my sincere apologise on behalf of Atos Healthcare for the poor service you received in the past and I hope that any future dealings with them are of a much more satisfactory nature.

Yours Sincerely

John Murphy

Commercial Directorate Medical Services, Correspondence Manager

Mr John Murphy
Commercial Directorate Medical Services
Correspondence Manager                                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Commercial Management of Medical Services
DWP
Room 36                                                     Ref: ...
Norcross Government Buildings
Norcross Lane
Thornton
Lancashire  FY5 3TA

Dear Mr Murphy

Re: serious complaint re Atos Healthcare

I acknowledge receipt today of your lengthy document, which apologises for my recent disturbing and unnecessarily distressing experience that lasted almost two years, yet totally fails to accept that Atos Healthcare has acted inappropriately with the exception of a failure to co-ordinate the complaint. Your claims do indeed make interesting reading but you are seriously misinformed.

I will respond as best I can but I must advise that a copy of your letter defending the Contractor unreservedly will be forwarded to the Senior President of Tribunals, as an enclosure to my research report, and for whom my very detailed research has been conducted over the past 9 months. I confess that your defence of Atos Healthcare is quite overwhelming and it is clear that, no matter how much evidence is presented, the DWP will work very hard to dismiss it to enable this private company to continue to reduce government care costs; regardless of consequences to the innocent and unsuspecting victims of this company. We can't all be dismissed as making a "vexatious claim". A copy of your letter will also be handed to my advisors.

If you have indeed had access to all correspondence then you may need to be informed that I do not consider that the offer of £200 was as a "consolatory" payment, because that seriously underestimates the distress caused by the totally unacceptable conduct, and totally bogus medical report produced, by the visiting doctor from Atos Healthcare. There is no way that £200 could begin to reflect the amount of "upset caused by their experience" and I firmly believe that the company presumed that I could be silenced by the offer of £200 but it just didn't work. My integrity is valued at much more than £200 and is, in fact, priceless.

Furthermore, despite a belated apology from Dr Beswick, who refused to show me the courtesy of a personal response to my concerns, he was simply apologising for the fact that the young doctor's visit failed to meet professional standards. Yet, Dr Beswick persistently ignored the fact that the young doctor also compromised medical ethics, by writing a medical report that claimed that he had conducted a medical examination on my person, which was totally UNTRUE! His medical report was a total work of fiction from start to end, and no amount of apologies can remove this violation of medical ethics. The fact that the company failed to acknowledge this profound breach of medical ethics, together with your overwhelming support, simply enforces how very serious this situation is for the sick and chronically disabled people of this nation. Indeed, in keeping with Atos Healthcare and the SPVA, you fail to comprehend the serious significance of this dishonest young man, whose arrogance knows no limits, suggesting that both my doctor and myself had, in fact, made a bogus deterioration claim.

Given the contents of the emails between Dr Beswick and Dr Kitchen, to which you refer, I am more than a little amazed that you feel that this information was in anyway evidence that Dr Beswick had 'completed the investigation' into my complaint. The contents of the emails were expressing his concerns that I could not be silenced, and that I was about to make a formal complaint to the GMC, which is why Dr Beswick will not offer me the courtesy of a written reply as he fears a GMC investigation, as confirmed in his emails to Dr Kitchen. I have received no copy of any investigation Mr Murphy, so I have no idea to what you are referring with that statement? Then again, if you insist in hanging on every word as exclusively reported to you by the Contractor, and dismiss any and all other detailed evidence as presented by a medically qualified patient, the results will always be unacceptable because you are clearly employed to defend the indefensible.

Your strong defence of Atos Healthcare is indeed interesting, and it seems that you would appear to have a different copy of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare when compared to mine, and do please remember that the Contract is now available via the Internet - all 500 pages. I am afraid that you have been seriously misinformed. Furthermore, for your information Mr Murphy, I am not a customer!!! The DWP is the customer of this company. I am a patient, a veteran and certainly a victim of this private Contractor, but I am most certainly not a customer. If you have indeed seen all correspondence then you would have noted the numbers of times I have confirmed that to be described as a 'customer' is deeply offensive, yet you clearly use that terminology in your letter to me. It does appear to be an uphill battle to offer evidence and information that anyone at the DWP or Atos Healthcare will actually take on board; such is the authority of this company that has no public accountability whatsoever apart from via the Contract Manager.

I have no interest in your assurances Mr Murphy. I have been conducting research for the past nine months into this company, health permitting, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Contractor does indeed choose which parts of the Contract to adhere to, and which to overlook, and clearly you do not appear to have access to the same evidence that I have acquired. Breaches of contractual agreements can only be actioned if you know about them. Clearly you don't!

You really can't have it both ways Mr Murphy. On the first page of your lengthy letter, you claim that my complaint could have been dealt with much better, and much faster, had the communications between various Government Departments been more effective. The reason they weren't was because my on-going complaint with the Contractor was never reported to the SPVA yet, on another page, you claim that the Contractor does not need to identify any complaints to the Authority. Clearly, Atos Healthcare can't improve communications with government departments without revealing the complaint, which they resisted. You appear to think that this is a satisfactory arrangement. I am telling you that, when it comes to health with funding worth in excess of £80 million per year, it is sinister. According to the Contract, the Contractor is required to notify the Authority within 2 days whenever they receive a complaint. Perhaps that information is missing from your copy of the contract, but it is freely available on-line. Indeed, the fact that you claim that under the Contract "there is no actual requirement" for the company to notify the Authority that they have received a complaint is, frankly, ludicrous and if this is now true then it removes one of the very few safety nets in place for the public when dealing with this corporate giant. I am confident that the Senior President of Tribunals will be most interested in these latest claims, in contradiction of the Contract.

Your comments reference the action taken against the doctor who visited me are verging on offensive and are certainly missing the point Mr Murphy. Regarding the "..documenting of the clinical assessment findings to avoid any possible misunderstanding of the examination" all I can say is ???? which case are you actually referring to I wonder, as it clearly is not mine. The was no "misunderstanding of the examination" Mr Murphy because there was NO EXAMINATION undertaken whatsoever!! Indeed, must I remind you again that you are dealing with a retired health professional? You may indeed be satisfied that Atos Healthcare have taken the "appropriate management action" but, then again, you hang on every word the Contractor reports to you, and presume it to be true, then you can justify ignoring overwhelming evidence that you are being manipulated and mislead by this company. Understand me when I tell you that my evidence is overwhelming, and I am very happy to offer it under oath if necessary so, no matter how many times you attempt to excuse Atos Healthcare's totally unacceptable actions, it makes no difference and I will tell you what I have already told the company: I will not be silenced.

Every paragraph you write demonstrates that you are totally unfamiliar with what really happened in my case. Regardless of what should happen, and what you now claim in your letter, the Contractor was given vast amounts of detailed medical evidence about my deteriorating health and it was totally ignored as, in keeping with confirmation in the House of Commons, the evidence from the Contractor is priority for the Decision Makers and, if that then includes a totally bogus medical report, the patient/victim of this system is in a no win situation. One day I think you should read my research, which will eventually be published on-line, so others can benefit from my experience. The patient's medical reports are not presented to the so-called Healthcare Professional at the interview because they have already been provided months in advance together with the detailed deterioration paperwork, or are you overlooking the fact that I am a War Pensioner and not a civilian? As for you now claiming that "...it is expected that they look at these papers" and that the Healthcare Professionals are required "..to provide advice that is fair and impartial" all I can say is that you have a great deal to learn and your expectations and presumptions about the way the Contractor meets the demands of the DWP contract is as far away from reality as is possible to get. You may indeed believe that "...there is a requirement on them to ensure that all the factual information that they record is accurate" but, Mr Murphy, what do you do when it is bogus and a work of fiction? Nothing as far as I can tell apart from to defend the indefensible. Oh dear! It looks like you'll need even more persuading so I suggest you wait until you learn of any reaction to my research, which is about to be distributed. Then I'll be preparing my formal and very detailed complaint for the GMC. The only thing we are agreed upon is that it is a serious breach of professional standards - ethics - to make a bogus medical report about any patient. So, WHY do you presume I'm making a formal complaint to the GMC?? I have a feeling that you have not seen all the correspondence between myself and this company as, if you had, you would be much better informed. Indeed, I'll precise the most important details that you appear to have overlooked, as follows:

When at my home in December 2008 the Atos Healthcare doctor:

• REFUSED to provide any ID apart from a name badge despite being asked on no fewer than 3 separate occasions
• ignored all good medical practice
• compromised medical ethics
• treated me with utter contempt
• silenced me with a wave of his hands
• insisted that I was not "permitted" to speak other than to offer answers to his questions
• resisted eye contact and attempted to intimidate
• claimed to have completed a physical examination on my person when no examination had taken place
• sniggered at me, and laughed in my face
• produced a medical report that was a total work of fiction and copied, verbatim, extracts of the medical evidence from parts of the previous 2006 medical examination

Now, do please tell me, which part of the above list do you fail to understand?

I am certain that Judge Robert Martin will be interested in your comments as you actually presume to distance Atos Healthcare from his annual reports by claiming that additional evidence will be reported at Appeal. You certainly do appear to believe in fairy stories, or anything the Contractor dreams to tell you, as long as it's as far away from reality as possible. Regardless of the excuses you have now compiled, you can't surely presume to dismiss evidence of doctors from Atos Healthcare consistently ignoring patient testimony, detailed medical evidence from Consultants as provided for the Atos Healthcare so called Healthcare Professional at interview, demonstrated to be ignored by the Contractor when they met the victim/patient/claimant, and the overwhelming evidence over the last 5 years that the situation is getting worse with each passing year. Indeed, your claims now explain why detailed evidence provided every year by Judge Martin are persistently ignored by the Government, so I'll explain to him so that he no longer needs to feel so frustrated that everything he publishes is overlooked at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. You are so wrong Mr Murphy, with countless numbers of Appeals not producing any additional evidence but simply that the Appeal offered the patient the opportunity that someone may actually be willing to believe them. I doubt that Judge Martin makes mistakes Mr Murphy and he is very adamant that the Atos Healthcare medicals are a very big problem as they often "fail to believe the applicants." I am wondering which part of that statement you may not understand? As for the information reported to you by Atos Healthcare, where is the evidence that it is in anyway accurate? I suggest you take another look at the annual reports from Judge Martin, as you do appear to be overlooking indisputable evidence from Justices from all the Tribunals, which may change once my research report has been circulated.

In closing Mr Murphy, it seems clear to me that the one over riding conclusion is that your remit is to defend Atos Healthcare because, no matter how much evidence is offered, the government's only concern is to reduce the costs of welfare. The chronically sick and disabled people of this nation make very easy targets, few could challenge bogus medical opinion convincingly, but I can and I will not be silenced no matter how many pages you send offering me limitless apologies whilst totally ignoring my detailed evidence, starting with the fact that the Healthcare Professional from Atos Healthcare did not conduct any medical examination whatsoever, wrote a totally bogus report and expected to be believed. Clearly, from your letter, you presume my challenge is bogus and I guarantee that you will live to be proved wrong.

I believe this draws our correspondence to a close.

Yours sincerely

... War Pensioner, Retired health professional

Tribunals Judiciary

SENIOR PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

Dear Mrs S...

Confidential research report - ATOS Healthcare

I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 15th July. You have asked if the Senior
President, will receive for his information, a copy of the finding of the research you have
undertaken regarding ATOS Healthcare.

I understand that Judge Andrew Bano of the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation
Chamber has accepted a copy from you. Accordingly, there is no need for you to send a
further copy to the Senior President. I should add that the status of any contracts that ATOS
may hold with government departments is not an issue that falls within the statutory
responsibilities of the Senior President.

I am sorry that we cannot be of more help.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Carr

First Floor Field House, 15 Breams Buildings London EC4A 1DZ
Telephone 020 7073 4064 Email simon.carr@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk
Web site www.judiciary.gov.uk
    

Simon Carr
Senior President's Office
Tribunals Judiciary  
First Floor Field House
15 Breams Buildings
London EC4A 1DZ

Dear Simon

Research report re unlawful activities of ATOS Healthcare

I confirm I have received your letter of 5th August and that the contents were, sadly, as expected.

Given the detailed contents of my contact letter to the Senior President, your letter is cause for concern and is clearly ignoring the fact that I am not talking about the Contract per say Simon. Indeed, I am talking about the clearly demonstrated medical abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and I had thought that the Judiciary existed to help people.

I did indeed send a copy of my report to Judge Bano but, since my Appeal is no longer necessary, I doubt that he will take the time to access it. Judge Martin, whose annual reports to government have all condemned the poor quality of the medical reports from this company but have all been systematically ignored by government, yet he also refuses to access my research. Now the Senior President isn't interested either.

This detailed research was conducted over a period of 9 months by a qualified medical professional. I am left wondering just how much more evidence is required, demonstrating that this company is causing trauma to the chronically sick and disabled people of this nation, before the Judiciary expresses some real concern? Statutory responsibilities not withstanding, this private company is knowingly abusing the most vulnerable people of our nation because they can, yet no one in authority will challenge this nightmare.

This is not something that will go away Simon, and there are others who will pursue this even if the Judiciary won't.

Yours sincerely

... War Pensioner, Retired health professional

Department for Work and Pensions

Prof. Malcolm Harrington
WCA Independent Review
6th Floor, Section B,
Caxton House, Tothill St
London
SWlH 9NA

l6 August 2010

Dear Mrs S...

Thank you for your letter of 21st July, which included a copy of the research report you have produced about Atos Healthcare.

My aim in carrying out the independent review of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is to assess both the fairness and effectiveness of the process, and to make some practical recommendations that can really improve it.

I was saddened to read about your experiences, and unfortunately is does not appear that you are alone in these. My intention is that the review will focus on the roles and responsibilities of both Atos Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus/the Department for Work and Pensions as clearly both have a role to play in ensuring that the WCA process works as well as it can.

I hope the recommendations I make can bring about real change, as well as highlighting areas which need to be explored in more detail in subsequent reviews of the WCA (this is the first of five annual reviews). I have already launched a call for evidence which supports the review (www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations) - if it is ok with you, I will use your research report as part of this.

Yours,

Professor Malcolm Harrington CBE

Miss Anne Begg MP                                           PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Chair, DWP Select Committee
Professor Malcolm Harrington
WCA Independent Review                                      WITHOUT PREJUDICE

23 August 2010

Dear Miss Begg & Professor Harrington

Re: ATOS medicals - a suggestion for urgent improvement

Given recent communications it seems very obvious that the totally unnecessary and deeply distressing trauma, now experienced by many genuine claimants, is unlikely to be speedily resolved.

As a retired health professional I have spent over a year investigating this medical evaluation system. My research has exposed deeply disturbing indisputable evidence of unnecessary trauma and, with the guarantee that nothing is likely to improve in the short term, I now humbly offer a suggestion to both the new DWP Select Committee and Professor Harrington for consideration:

SUGGESTION:

A simple Contract renegotiation could very quickly reduce the unacceptable experience suffered by so many chronically sick and genuinely disabled patients/claimants/victims of the present medical evaluation system, and that includes disabled children. None of them are "customers".

Ignore the proclaimed medical expertise of a professional working in the field of Occupational Medicine, who is still funded by a private insurance corporation that occupies the position as market leader in occupational health insurance. Return to universally accepted high calibre medical practise and instruct the DWP Decision Makers that any and all detailed clinical opinion from Consultants and/or Medical Specialists are to be accepted verbatim, regardless of cost implications for the DWP Welfare Budget. The seriously ill, chronically disabled and vulnerable victims of this deeply flawed medical evaluation system must be protected, and the state has a duty of care to anyone too ill or too disabled to work. Quite clearly, it is this ruthless and dangerous dismissal of Consultant opinion that is placing genuinely sick and chronically disabled patients/claimants in jeopardy.

Of course, it would also help if those responsible for overseeing the DWP Contract with Atos Healthcare were actually familiar with the contents of the Contract - which in its entirety is 500 pages long - including and especially MPs, who must represent their distressed constituents, and members of the DWP Select Committee. Given the contents of their published reports, the previous DWP Select Committee were clearly unfamiliar with significant details of the Contract.

To a medical professional like myself, I suggest that common sense is often the answer to complex questions. It's time for able-bodied politicians to place the actual welfare of the sick and disabled people of this country as their top priority, instead of the reduction in costs of the welfare budget. Indeed, if clinical expert opinion was to be accepted, as is the norm, the government could then reduce the costs of the welfare budget by £100million per annum by removing ATOS Healthcare. For the genuine long-term sick and chronically disabled patients/claimants, who are the vast majority of all those in receipt of disability benefits now under investigation, the GPs should be advised to seek a Specialist medical opinion, which could then be provided for any eventual DWP investigation of the patient/claimant. It should be a simple paperwork exercise, well within the capabilities of Decision Makers. This simple change should prevent the need for desperately ill patients to travel for hours, on public transport, and to be kept waiting for up to an hour only to experience a totally unacceptable medical evaluation, as happens with this present system. (Detailed evidence contained within main research report.)

May I please remind you that, as a chronically disabled War Pensioner, the Deputy Director of the Veterans Medical Services, Dr Paul Kitchen, actually forwarded any letters he was intending to send to me to the MD at Atos Healthcare for his prior approval, in the hope that nothing he wrote could possibly cause problems for the company! Therefore, the dangers of this system are obvious whereby all concerned believe that they are required to defer to Atos Healthcare before offering care to claimants. This Contract is between the DWP and Atos Healthcare yet it is Atos who are, clearly, very much in charge. This sinister situation is costing £100million per annum.

It is obvious that the previous government were desperate to cut costs and so accepted claimed evidence by a professional who had a different agenda, and who is still funded by the private corporation on whose example this medical evaluation system was based. May I please remind you that this same corporation was fined US$31.7million in a Californian class action lawsuit, in 2002/2003, where the Judge identified the company as operating "disability denial factories."

There is no doubt that there have been bogus claimants in the past, yet they are identified as being a tiny fraction of the total and numbering no more that 0.2% of the entire welfare budget. Why must the majority suffer because a few were able to play a system that, by definition, was top heavy with administration? This DWP medical evaluation system is a reaction to government panic and innocent victims are the least able to cope. Indeed, I suggest that the deeply disturbing irony is that easily identified and totally bogus medical reports, by staff members employed by this private contractor, are being used to refuse help to genuinely sick and disabled people in an effort to reduce presumed bogus benefit claims!

Introducing the above suggestion will reduce the trauma for the majority of the innocent victims of this government funded medical tyranny. Indisputable evidence of identified totally bogus medical reports, produced by Disability Analysts when making domiciliary visits to claimants, is readily identified in my main research report, now being widely distributed to concerned professionals working in welfare. Access to significant extracts from the DWP Contract can be found at a website designed by a patient who is terminal, with a primary frontal brain tumour with only a few more months to live. His experiences with this DWP medical evaluation system are deeply disturbing and his website offers detailed evidence: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html refers.

I will leave diplomacy to the Diplomats as the overwhelming evidence identified in my very detailed research report is far too important to ignore, and potentially impacts on countless thousands of vulnerable people who are least able to defend themselves.

It is assumed and presumed that my detailed research will not be summarily dismissed because it included evidence of my own experience, as clearly identified in the report, and as implied recently by the Clerk to the DWP Select Committee.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., War Pensioner, Retired health professional

cc: Dr Stephen Hall

      Scottish Association
      of Citizens Advice Bureaux
      1st Floor Spectrum House
      2 Powderhall Road
      Edinburgh
      EH7 4GB

      Telephone      0131 550 1000
      e-mail         info@cas.org.uk
      website        www.cas.org.uk
      need advice?   www.adviceguide.org.uk

23rd August 2010

Dear Ms S...,

Thank you for sending us a copy of your report, Atos Healthcare or
Disability Denial factories. It has proved a rich source of information.

Problems with benefits are the number one issue our clients bring to the
Scottish bureaux. Citizens Advice Scotland works responsibly with the
case evidence provided through the bureaux network in Scotland to
influence and change social policy at a national level. Your report has
added to our knowledge base.

We are continuing to work with both Atos and the DWP to deliver a fairer
benefits system for our clients and the Scottish population as a whole.

Please feel free to send us more information on Atos or the DWP in the
future

Thank you once again

Kind Regards


Matt Lancashire
Social Policy Officer


Patron    HRH The Princess Royal

The Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux - Citizens Advice Scotland
(Scottish charity number SC016637)
Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux trading as Citizens Advice Scotland is
a Company Limited by Guarantee No 89892
Registered Office 1st Floor Spectrum House 2 Powderhall Road Edinburgh EH7 4GB
    

Ms Kathy Barnes
Chief Executive
SPVA                                              STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Centurion Building
Grange Road
Gosport                                                     WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PO13 9XA
      
3rd September 2010 

Re: ATOS Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories - a research report

Thank you for responding to my initial contact and inviting access to this detailed research report.

As an introduction, please be advised that I am a retired health professional and a chronically disabled War Pensioner. Like many other people, I was incensed when confronted with an arrogant young man from Atos Healthcare, claiming to be a doctor, whilst steadfastly refusing to offer any form of acceptable ID to a lone disabled woman. He visited my home in December 2008 to conduct what was meant to be a medical examination on behalf of the SPVA, who fund my War Pension, and the consequences of his totally unacceptable visit, and the very long battle to reclaim my integrity, has further impacted on my failing health.

Please be further advised that it is usually unacceptable to include personal experience within any research report. However, for this particular research, it was unavoidable but does not detract from the weight of additional disturbing evidence identified within the report, as confirmed by various experts working within the caring professions.

This very detailed research, which has taken almost a year to research and produce, exposed overwhelming evidence that confirms that the DWP, and the SPVA, are totally incapable of monitoring or enforcing the government Contract with this private contractor, to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people within our society. Unfortunately, Atos Healthcare also conducts the deterioration medicals for disabled veterans, who have suffered life-changing disabilities in the service of their country. They deserve much better. However, the indisputable fact is that Atos Healthcare breach the DWP Contract often, because they can, and because there is no supervision whatsoever at a cost to this nation of £100million per annum.

Indeed, I was especially concerned to discover evidence that Dr Paul Kitchen, at the SPVA, actually forwarded proposed letters written for me to the MD at Atos Healthcare, for his prior approval before posting to me, whilst claiming that he didn't want to risk writing anything that could be a problem for the company! If this private contractor enjoys that much authority it would appear that the SPVA are virtually redundant and, certainly, the protracted battle to find justice left me clinically and emotionally exhausted. No disabled veteran should need to endure this unacceptable treatment.

The new government have recently announced an independent enquiry of the WCA medical examinations, as conducted by Atos Healthcare staff, and under the leadership of Professor Malcolm Harrington. Whilst I am not in receipt of benefits I was obliged to offer the Professor a copy of my report and I am very happy to confirm that he has willingly accepted my research as evidence for the Inquiry, with his report due for publication in December. The Professor also confirmed how saddened he was to learn of my totally unacceptable experiences with Atos Healthcare and that my experiences were certainly not an isolated case.

I make no apologies for the fact that my report is very long and detailed. It will cause alarm to any high calibre health professional who may access it, and able-bodied professionals should be advised that this wholly destructive chain of events should not be retained. Indeed, a simple and effective method of removal of these identified "disability denial factories" is identified within the text of the main report, and further information is being provided for the DWP Select Committee.

If interested in more detailed information regarding the unacceptable medical practice of this private contractor, please see www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html - the website designer is terminal, with only months left to live, and an edited version of my research report is included within this website. I am told that my web pages have already had thousands of hits via the Internet, so many people already know that veterans will be treated shamefully just because their disability is deteriorating but their government don't wish to fund the costs, whilst aided and abetted by the SPVA.

In closing I should advise that my report is finding favour with professionals and a copy of the report has been distributed to various WPCs. I trust that the evidence within my report will cause you concern and that every effort will be employed to remove this government funded medical tyranny from our country. It is also hoped that Dr Kitchen will in future resist the need to be so totally supportive of Atos Healthcare, and that he will be encouraged to pay much more attention to the needs of the disabled veterans he is presumed to represent and support.

In my clinical experience when concern, compassion and humanity are removed from medical examinations, medical abuse is sure to follow. It's time to stop this medical tyranny and to place the welfare of seriously ill and chronically disabled people at the top of the DWP/SPVA agenda instead of priority being given to the reduction of the budget. It is the government who have bankrupted the nation and it's time to stop using the disabled as easy targets to reduce costs.

You will have assumed that I leave diplomacy to the Diplomats. Successive reports from the President of the Appeal Tribunals, and the DWP Select Committee, have all been totally ignored so, clearly, diplomacy doesn't appear to be working and the sick and disabled people of this nation are the victims of this undoubted medical tyranny, based on questionable advice by a professional with a very different agenda.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., War Pensioner, Retired health professional

Vanessa Stanislas, Chief Executive 
Disability Alliance
Universal House, 88-94 Wentworth Street, London E1 7SA
Tel: 020 7247 8776
Registered charity number 1063115
Company limited by guarantee number 2056801
www.disabilityalliance.org 
Breaking the link between poverty and disability

Subject: RE: Confidential research report

Dear Vanessa

Re: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories - a research report

I have not yet had a response to the research report sent to you in confidence in July and fear that, like many busy professionals, it will be considered far too involved to study. I regret that cost limitations prevented it being better presented and, surviving on a War Pension, I regret I couldn't have done a better job due to excessive costs involved.

Time has moved on, my research report has been accepted by Prof Harrington as evidence for his ind enquiry, to be published in December, and other interested parties seem to be greatful for the evidence exposed within the very detailed report.

The full report, plus summary, are now available online at the following website: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html and I am grateful to the website designer, who is himself terminally ill with a brain tumour, with only months left to live, and who has been shamefully treated by the DWP/Atos Healthcare; hence his website.

In keeping with my previous contact, I have now written a research summary covering the most serious aspects of the research evidence, without the reader needing to access the full report. I have attached a copy of the summary to this email for your information and I sincerely hope that you may find the time needed to read it.

It has been brought to my attention that my report lacks diplomacy!

Please be advised that I don't play those games, and I'll leave the diplomacy to the very highly paid professionals who have failed the chronically sick and disabled people of this country by permitting this identified medical tyranny to continue, and I am choosing my words very carefully for tyranny is what this is Vanessa.

The DWP have ignored consecutive detailed concerns identified in the annual reports by the President of the Appeal Tribunals and they also ignore contents of DWP Select Committee reports so, clearly, diplomacy isn't working and the chronically sick and disabled people of this nation continue to be betrayed by their own government. Recent outbursts in the national press by the DWP Minister, Chris Grayling, have been cause for serious concern and you can guess who provides the totally ludicrous statistics he is now proclaiming....

Let's hope that detailed and confirmed research evidence will help to stop this tyranny?

Kind regards

Mrs S..., War Pensioner, Retired health professional

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL & URGENT:

Attn: DWP Select Committee

To: Whom it may concern

Re: ATOS HEALTHCARE OR DISABILITY DENIAL FACTORIES by Mrs S...

You will know from reading my detailed research report and summary that I was inspired by a terminally ill man Mr B..., who is dying with an inoperable brain tumour, and that he permitted me to put my research evidence onto his website: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html & www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html refers.

From our experiences we have both demonstrated that the DWP/SPVA do not monitor or supervise the £100million per annum government contract with Atos Healthcare and now, at last, the final piece of the puzzle has arrived. Mr B... has given me his kind permission to now identify him with the following very important information:

In a lengthy letter to Mr B..., dated 3rd September 2010, from Hilary Brierley she states the following:

I am responding in my role as manager of the DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services (CMMS) team ....... CMMS is responsible for managing the performance of Atos Healthcare, who provide medical services on behalf of the Department to support Decision Making on sickness and disability related benefits.

...

However, I can confirm that the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with its contractual obligations.

...

As previously identified by both Mr B... and myself, this DWP manager has now confirmed in writing that the DWP has totally failed in its duty of care by NOT monitoring the contract with Atos Healthcare. They have simply monitored "performance targets" but didn't it seems bother to check that this contractor was supporting the details within the actual contract.

As previously advised, Ministers and successive Prime Ministers have not only misled the House, but also the country, by constant claims that this contract was closely monitored, which indeed is a DWP contract requirement.

Hilary Brierley has admitted that not once in the past 5 years has the Department monitored/audited the actual "contractual obligations" which is not only a breach of contract but, I humbly suggest, a breach of trust to the British people, who continue to be victims of this contractor.

Mrs S..., War Pensioner, Retired health professional

From:  Pam Kay, Bsc (Hons), Sec3a3
       Service Personnel and Veterans Agency
       Room F10   
       Innsworth House
       Imjin Barracks
       Innsworth
       Gloucester
       GL3 1HW
Tel: (01452) 712612 Ext 7572   

       SPVA/Sec/6/7/35

       14 September 2010

Dear Mrs S...

Thank you for your email of 16 August to the Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans concerning the report you have prepared on Atos Healthcare. Your letter has been passed to the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency as we have responsible for Armed Forces pensions, and I have been asked to reply.

I understand that you have been in correspondence with Dr Kitchen who is the Deputy Head of our Veterans Services (Medical), with regard to a very serious problem you had with one of the doctors working for Atos Healthcare. The investigation by senior management at Atos concluded that the doctor's report was below the required standard and it was agreed that he will not be doing any work for SPVA without Dr Kitchen's personal permission.

I can assure you that SPVA is committed to providing veterans with the best service possible, and any complaints are taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated. Should any further problems arise with the standard and conduct of Atos they will be fully investigated and addressed.

I hope this reply is helpful and explains the position.

Yours sincerely

Pamela Kay

Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: RESEARCH REPORT

Hello Pam

Thanks for the letter, which was expected, but I'm afraid you are being mislead.

I would urge the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare & Veterans to accept my confidential and very detailed research report, following 9 months of research.

The report was distributed long before contacting the Minister. Various high calibre professionals have accepted the report and are very grateful for it, and you are very mistaken if you presume that it is limited to my own experience with one unethical Atos Healthcare doctor. Dr Kitchen will tell you what you want to hear, and please remember you are communicating with a retired health professional.

I am giving the Minister the opportunity to be prepared before this hits the press, and I would urge him to read my report very carefully.

I suggest you forward this email back to his office before he is asked difficult questions by the media.

Kind regards

Mrs S..., War Pensioner, Retired health professional

Date: 25th October 2010

To:   Ms Kathy Barnes
      Chief Executive, SPVA                      Private & Confidential
      Management Suite
      Centurion Building
      Grange Road                                Without Prejudice
      Gosport
      Hampshire
      PO13 9XA

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19th October 2010, claiming to be in response to my previous letter of 15th September 2010.

I must advise that the contents of your letter are totally unacceptable given the fact that you fail to make reference to the contents of my earlier letter of 20th August 2010, which clearly demonstrated the unacceptable conduct of Dr Paul Kitchen, of the SPVA, who felt the need to forward all letters written to myself to the MD at Atos Healthcare, for his prior approval, in the hope that nothing Dr Kitchen wrote to me could cause a possible problem for the company. I suggest this unacceptable activity by Dr Kitchen should be of major concern to the Chief Executive of the SPVA as it is to the detriment of a disabled veteran.

As already explained, if this private company has that much power and control then the activities of the Deputy Director of Veterans Medical Services do appear to be totally superficial. It is especially worrying to note that Dr Kitchen also claimed that he has employed "drafters" to include the "touchy feely factor" into any letters written to veterans, in the hope of silencing any complaint whilst permitting Atos Healthcare to breach the government contract at will.

Clearly, by Dr Kitchen's own admission, without his input the company were not prepared to investigate my very serious complaint and it took over 9 months of my time, and over 18 months from the original bogus medical, to reach an acceptable decision only because I refused to permit this company to intimidate me.

You are the Chief Executive of the SPVA and, in that capacity, I suggest you have a duty of care to all disabled veterans who have been disabled in the service of this country to ensure that the Deputy Director of Veterans Medical Services makes a much greater effort to enforce the government medical contract with this company when it comes to the welfare of our disabled veterans. The fact that the contract is between the DWP and the company is irrelevant. The SPVA is attached to the DWP, as you will know, and so your claims that this nightmare is outside your area of responsibility are totally unacceptable. As the Chief Executive you should make sure that you raise these very serious concerns with Dr Kitchen, whose devotion to Atos Healthcare, instead of the disabled veterans, will be brought to the attention of the GMC in the fullness of time.

I should also like to mention the fact that I didn't raise any "points", as suggested in a dismissive way in your letter, but you were, in fact, provided with a very detailed and professional research report, that had taken 12 months of my time. Therefore, I'd be most grateful if you resisted the temptation to attempt to dismiss a research report that has been welcomed and accepted by a variety of high calibre professionals working in the welfare sector, including Professor Harrington who is to use my research as evidence in his forthcoming independent inquiry.

Less than impressed.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE WORK CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

A RESPONSE TO 1st REVIEW - NOVEMBER 2010

It has been a well established fact for many years that to be gainfully employed is very beneficial to the self esteem and to be able to financially support the family is a basic human need. In his report, An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA)(1), Professor Harrington has identified a variety of evidence to confirm that employment is a very rewarding part of life and the Professor highlighted the potentially damaging effect of 'worklessness.' Due to the restrictions of the review, the Professor has concentrated on the undoubted benefits of paid employment, whilst it should be remembered that the UK is supported by an army of volunteers, many of whom are actually registered as chronically sick and/or disabled.(2)

The obvious benefits of being employed are not challenged but these benefits also apply when not physically capable of maintaining paid employment and when offering skills and services only when able. There are significant personal benefits to feeling useful, especially when identified skills have been welcomed and appreciated. The only difference is that, due to limited health and strength, donated work cannot be guaranteed when the volunteer suffers with a chronic health condition. Nevertheless, volunteers benefit from having a purpose in life and countless charities save on potentially high costs as voluntary work, by definition, is free of charge. Therefore, any presumption by the able bodied community, especially some politicians, that all chronically disabled people in receipt of disability benefits are totally idle is at best misleading, is demonstrably incorrect and more than a little insulting to many of us who strive to remain as useful as possible in society despite being permanently unfit for paid employment.

The Harrington Report is the first of five planned WCA annual reviews as the government introduce measures to reduce the increasing costs of disability, to remove as many people as possible from a life on disability benefits and to claim to offer significant "support" which, to date, has not been identified other than with vague references (1). The broad aims of the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) would appear to be credible but the clearly identified point of total failure is the delivery of the assessment process when using Atos Healthcare, a private contractor, for medical evaluations whose Healthcare Professionals'(HCP) medical opinions have been frequently challenged (1)+(2)+(3) but who enjoy "total immunity from all medical regulation" according to both the General Medical Council(GMC) and the Healthcare Commission.(2) Using inexperienced basic grade civil servants identified as Decision Makers, who are expected to make decisions of paramount importance when clearly lacking the skills and the confidence for this to be achieved, is another identified serious failure of the present system, with the reduction of the budget being the clear government priority instead of the welfare of the chronically sick and disabled people who must endure these often harrowing assessments.(2) Research evidence conducted over 9 months confirmed that these Decision Makers breached their terms of reference as identified in the Department for Work and Pension's (DWP) £100 million per annum contract with Atos Healthcare (2). These administrators simply agreed with the medical opinion presented by any Atos Healthcare HCP, thus "rubber stamping" the assessment, instead of evaluating all presented evidence, which is a contract requirement: "It's difficult. I mean, they're a doctor. They've assessed the person, I don't know enough about it to overrule what they're saying."(1) -Jobcentre Plus Decision Maker + (2)

As clearly identified in a very detailed research report(2), the responsibility of employing a DWP staff member identified as a "Decision Maker" implies that such staff have the necessary skills needed to reach the correct decision, based on all presented evidence, and not limited to the exclusive input from an Atos Healthcare HCP. Quite clearly, this important work is best suited to medical administrators who by definition, as well as training and experience, are already familiar

1. An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment - November 2010 – Professor Malcolm Harrington

2. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories – an independent research report by MS – June 2010

3. Report by the President of the Appeal Tribunals on the standard of decision making by the Secretary of State 2007- 08 by HH Judge Robert Martin

with medical texts and reports. In reality, the introduction of this medical evaluation system was delivered to be as cost effective as possible, with the reduction of government costs as the clear priority. By using basic administrators as Decision Makers, who clearly lack the necessary expertise needed to consider and confidently interpret the variety of medical opinion that would inevitably be provided by claimants as supporting evidence, this DWP delivery system was guaranteed to betray the trust of the chronically sick and disabled citizens it is meant to support. (1)+(2)+(3) Hence the growing numbers of Appeals, the identified frustration of His Honour Judge Robert Martin as demonstrated in his successive annual reports to government(2)+(3) and the unnecessary distress placed on to the genuinely chronically sick and disabled people of this nation. 40%+ of all DWP appealed decisions are being overturned at Appeal: "... there is little evidence of significant change over time in standards of administrative decision-making, as gauged by cases coming before tribunals." (HH Judge Robert Martin) (3)

Surely the employment of qualified medical administrators in the role of Decision Makers, who fully comprehend the need to consider all evidence rather than just the hastily acquired and deeply flawed contracted medical assessment, and who are confident with the interpretation of medical reports, would be much better placed to make such decisions? The subsequent significant reduction in the numbers of Appeals would suggest a cost saving to cover any additional costs of employing fully qualified medical administrators as Decision Makers. Inviting the present Decision Makers to witness Appeal Tribunals in action, as recommended by the Harrington Review(1), will not remove the fact that these administrators have no skills in medical administration, are clearly demonstrated to be totally inadequate and the Harrington Review will certainly not assist their professional development.(1)+(2)+(3). The DWP contract with Atos Healthcare defines the role of the Decision Maker yet, without effective supervision or monitoring, the DWP have abandoned their responsibility to guarantee that countless thousands of genuine claimants would suffer needlessly, and be forced to attempt an Appeal, due to the savage injustices experienced at assessment level. Where are the planned government apologies to the many thousands of victims of this totally compromised medical evaluation system?

The lack of empathy and respect afforded to the victims of this system (1)+(2) is significant and cause for concern. However, that very lack of empathy and respect is actually identified as lacking in humanity, as confirmed by countless thousands of victims of this impersonal and totally compromised medical evaluation system.(2) The damaging impact of this assessment system is clearly highlighted by Professor Harrington(1) yet with no suggestion of any redress for those who have already suffered from their inhumane experience, including the unnecessarily hostile and often threatening correspondence received from the DWP (1)+(2)+(3).

Mrs S..., War Pensioner (WRAF), Retired health professional

3rd December 2010

References:

1. An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment Professor Malcolm Harrington – November 2010 www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf

2. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories An independent research report - MS – June 2010 www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html

3. President's Report 2007-08 - HH Judge Robert Martin Report by the President of Appeal Tribunals on the standard of decision-making by the Secretary of State. www.appeals-service.gov.uk/Documents/SSCSA_PresRep07_08FINAL.pdf

Date: 24th January 2011

To;   Mr Jon Parkin
      Executive Director, SPVA
      Head of Veterans Services
      SPVA                                       Private & confidential
      Room 6404
      Thornton-Cleveleys
      Lancashire                                 Without prejudice
      FY5 3WP

Dear Mr Parkin

Ref: 

I am writing in response to your letter of 14th January, 2011 in which you invite me to make contact with the SPVA Independent Complaints Panel and confirm that your letter is in response to my previous letters of 4th and 14th December 2010.

In your most recent letter you now claim that the letter from John Murphy, dated 21st June 2010, was a comprehensive response to my complaint but totally overlook my detailed response to him, dated 23rd June 2010, which challenged most of Mr Murphy's letter given that he was clearly demonstrating that he had been totally misinformed. I now enclose a copy of that response for your information and wonder if your recent letter is not yet another example of the Executive Director of the SPVA only really considering evidence from paid professionals, and totally dismissing very detailed evidence provided by a disabled veteran who happens to be medically qualified?

It is cause for enormous concern to have it confirmed that Dr Braidwood (MOD) had access to all detailed information, yet still concluded that there were no issues likely to be of interest to the GMC after considering that the whole point of my complaint begins with the fact that this retired hi calibre medical professional advised that the doctor from Atos Healthcare provided a totally bogus medical report, which is actually against the law and is a total breach of medical ethics! This is totally incomprehensible unless, of course, Dr Braidwood has decided to join forces with everyone else at the SPVA and attempted to either ignore my evidence, dismiss my very detailed evidence or fails to believe me in the hope of silencing me which, to date, has not been achieved. This is the danger of employing (presumed) civilians in senior positions in an organisation involved exclusively with veterans who, I can personally guarantee, live by the code of honour demonstrated when in service to this nation when in uniform. It's indeed a great pity that, despite overwhelming and very detailed evidence, no-one at the SPVA will accept it, and there are those who find this attitude totally unacceptable and utterly reprehensible - and the numbers are growing daily.

The extended exchanges of letters between myself, Atos Healthcare and the SPVA have confirmed the expressed concerns as identified in consecutive annual reports by His Honour Judge Robert Martin, when President of the Appeal Tribunals. Judge Martin insists that the biggest problem is the fact that paid professionals, like yourself, resist believing the many victims of this government imposed medical tyranny with Atos Healthcare whose parent company, Atos Origin, is a corporate giant. Indeed, it is no surprise that Atos Origin were awarded the lucrative IT government contract for the 2012 Olympic Games as, to some of us, it was a foregone conclusion.

It is also interesting to note that, since my detailed research report has been distributed, various government Ministers and officials have had their names removed from the Atos website as they don't wish to be identified as accepting generous hospitality from this corporate giant at the 2010 COHPA AGM. I wonder why?! So, it seems that some people are taking my research report very seriously indeed, and it is freely available via the Internet so more and more people are accessing my research daily. Atos Healthcare make 50 hits per day on my website - presumably to check that I haven't added any more information to it perhaps?

I have not yet decided if it is worth my very valuable time to approach the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), as suggested in your recent letter. Given that they share your postal address, you will appreciate that I am not at all convinced as to their actual claimed independence, as no doubt the SPVA won't be too happy if the ICP were to finally uphold a complaint from a medical professional who clearly demonstrated that a doctor from Atos Healthcare actually breached medical ethics, and broke the law, by supplying a totally bogus medical report claiming to have conducted a medical examination when no such examination took place. We simply had a medical interview and, unless and until the Executive Director of the SPVA comprehends that this chronically disabled and medically qualified veteran holds a great deal of evidence, that other high calibre professionals have accepted, you are a long way away from demonstrating any genuine concern for the disabled veterans of this nation. Furthermore, if the people engaged with the ICP are also civilians, I doubt there would be much point in approaching them. No civilian can fully comprehend what it is to serve this nation in uniform or the bond that exists between all veterans.

As far as I can tell, the Agency's position, as referenced in your letter, is simply to resist any evidence that Atos Healthcare are doing anything other than what is required, and there is no evidence that the SPVA are genuinely supportive of this nation's disabled veterans but do place a great deal of energy into attempting to silence anyone who has the temerity to challenge their dubious conclusions.

Clearly, given the authority of the parent company, Atos Origin, the SPVA simply 'toe the line' rather than making any real challenge and, certainly, the disturbing exchanges of emails between Dr Kitchen with Dr Beswick, where Dr Kitchen is totally subservient to the MD of Atos Healthcare, clearly demonstrates the point. Indeed, as the Executive Director of the SPVA it is alarming to note that you have failed to express any concern, despite the fact that the MD of Atos Healthcare, Dr David Beswick, actually refuses to commit any medical opinion in writing fearing investigation by the GMC, as confirmed in emails to Dr Kitchen. As a medical professional I must advise you that this detail should be sending off alarm bells, but I note that the SPVA simply accept this situation and, apparently, so does Dr Braidwood. What a great pity. I will not accept this and I guarantee that there are others who also find this admission deeply disturbing, and you can rest assured that I am in correspondence with a great many people with genuine concerns for our disabled veterans, whose health has suffered in the defence of our country.

What is surely of enormous concern is the fact that the appointment of (presumed) civilians as the Executive Director and the Chief Executive of the SPVA is clearly a very grave mistake. These are significant positions that should be held by retired senior officers, who actually comprehend military service to this nation, and honour and integrity is presumed rather than dismissed. I doubt that any such retired senior officer would dismiss detailed evidence from a disabled veteran, who happens to be a medical professional, that the doctor from Atos Healthcare actually broke the law, compromised medical ethics and actually attempted to intimidate a lone disabled woman in her own home; yet you and your colleagues have persistently overlooked all such reported evidence, despite being advised that I am happy to offer this evidence under oath should that ever prove to be necessary. So much for the SPVA supporting the veterans.

What is of particular interest is that, following receipt of the Consultant's report, that fully supported my deterioration claims, the SPVA suddenly and unexpectedly increased my War Pension when only a couple of weeks away from the planned Appeal Tribunal. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why this happened but, speaking personally, I believe it was because Dr Kitchen didn't want all my detailed evidence to be revealed at Appeal. You should also be advised that Professor Harrington used my research report as evidence for his recent WCA enquiry and that a growing number of high calibre professionals do accept my evidence, but not it seems the SPVA.

Indeed, since discovering written confirmation from the DWP CMMS manager, who confirmed in a letter to a dying man that "... the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with contractual obligations..." you will fully comprehend why I, and other victims of this government medical tyranny, do not hold with the ongoing and never ending support of the activities of this company, especially when dealing with our nation's disabled veterans. They deserve much, much better.

Yours, very sincerely

Mrs S..., War Pensioner (WRAF), Retired health professional

Copied to: Stephen Barclay, MP

Enclosures:

• Letter to John Murphy - Correspondence Manager, CDMS - 23rd June 2010
• Letter to John Murphy - Correspondence Manager, CDMS - 28th June 2010

       "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
                                       Edmund Burke

                   "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
                                       John Pilger

                     ".never underestimate the power of persistence."
                                      Nelson Mandela

  Date: 7th February 2011

  To:   Mrs Maria Miller, MP
        Minister for Disabled People                 Private & confidential
        Department for Work & Pensions (DWP)
        Caxton House                                 Without prejudice
        Tothill Street
        London 
        SW1H 9DA

Re: DLA reform consultation - response

Please excuse this unsolicited contact from a chronically disabled veteran, who happens to also be a retired health professional. However, given your opening comments in the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform consultation document, together with my references to those unacceptable comments in my detailed response, I believe you may wish sight of the contents of the enclosed report.

Please be further advised that it is cause for serious concern to note that the Minister for Disabled People should demonstrate such limited comprehension of what is a vast subject area, and the patronising contents of the consultation document has proven offensive to many.

You should also be alerted to the fact that, following a visit by an Atos Healthcare doctor, who produced a totally bogus medical report, I spent almost a year undertaking deep research into the activities of this contractor, and the damning research results have been widely accepted by various national welfare agencies.(1) Needless to say, all evidence is resisted by the Service Pensions and Veterans Agency (SPVA), who are meant to exist to support the veterans whose evidence they now totally disregard. I suggest that the letter to the Executive Director of the SPVA dated 24th January 2011, and now enclosed for your information, may be of particular interest to demonstrate the resistance of the SPVA to actually supporting the nation's disabled veterans.

It is cause for very serious concern that a previous British government adopted an American style medical assessment system, an identical copy of that used by UnumProvident, yet remain oblivious to the fact that UnumProvident are actually banned from several States in America since a Judge in California fined them $31.7millon and identified the company as running "disability denial factories." (1)(4) I'm sure the British people would wish to know why this identified medical tyranny was adopted, despite the overwhelming evidence that the assessments, using a computer programme for the fatally flawed Work Capability Assessment, have been demonstrated to be totally unfit for purpose.(1)(2) There are significant numbers of successful lawsuits against UnumProvident in America and evidence exists that the DWP continue to consult with UnumProvident UK. (4) (4b)

Please be further advised that there is a growing ground swell of opinion from the disabled population regarding this savage onslaught of 'reforms' and, perhaps, if you care to observe the website, you will conclude that some of the reforms are, in fact, dangerous.(3) Indeed, these profoundly sick and/or disabled people use a blog identified as 'Benefit Scrounging Scum' because that is their interpretation of comments made about them by the government and DWP staff, which is then repeated by the press and the media when referring to "benefit cheats."

(1)  Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories:
     www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html
(2)  Citizens Advice Scotland: Unfit for purpose:
     www.cas.uk/Resources/CAS?Migrated%20Resources/Documents/ER%20Unfit%20for%20Purpose
(3)  The Broken of Britain: www.youtube.com/ search for the Broken of Britain - disability.
     Website address constantly changing as people add to it.
(4)  www.acc.focus.org/international/item/2193-unum-provident-denied-disability-claims.html
(4b) www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/tpca.pdf

I would urge you to read the enclosed detailed report, which is a response to the DLA reform consultation but, in keeping with previous government consultations, it is likely that the DWP will totally ignore all comments and that this consultation is nothing more than another government paperwork exercise. The need to cut costs in no way justifies the dangerous proposals within the DLA reform consultation document, but the government are famous for ignoring all recommendations, as demonstrated in the annual reports by His Honour Judge Robert Martin when President of the Appeal Tribunals.(1) Therefore, no-one working in welfare is expecting any response to be taken seriously by the DWP. Time will tell.

All reported evidence identifies that no more than 0.5% of all claims for DLA were bogus, so perhaps you could please advise why the DWP insist on causing unnecessary trauma to almost three million people?

Please resist the temptation to refer this letter to the SPVA as, following 18 months of correspondence, there is nothing further to say to that government department. A very belated and insincere apology failed to silence me, and I will not enter into more meaningless correspondence.

Furthermore, there is no point contacting my MP, Stephen Barclay, who is awaiting the results of the DWP Chief Medical Adviser's consideration of my research report(1), resists all further contact and my invitation for my MP to meet with me has, to date, been ignored. However, given that the present DWP Chief Medical Adviser is identified in my correspondence as being one of several government representatives enjoying generous corporate hospitality by Atos Origin, at the COHPA 2010 AGM, I believe that any eventual opinion expressed by him will be a conflict of interest.

I hope I may look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience because, as the Minister for Disabled People, I believe that it is essential for this important information to be brought to your personal attention.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired health professional

cc:   Stephen Hall, PhD    - Academic Adviser
      Adam Douglas         - Chairman, The Forgotten Heroes
      Charley Downey       - Trustee, The Forgotten Heroes
      Kaliya Franklin      - Founder, The Broken of Britain
      Ian Duncan Smith, MP - Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
      Liam Byrne, MP       - Shadow Secretary for Work & Pensions
      Sue Royston          - Welfare Rights & Policy Adviser, Citizens Advice

Encl:  (a)  The DLA reform consultation - response.
              (b) Letter to Jon Parkin, Exec Director SPVA, dated 24th January, 2011

       "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
                                       Edmund Burke

                   "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
                                       John Pilger

                     ".never underestimate the power of persistence."
                                      Nelson Mandela

(1) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html

Date: 27th April 2011

To:   Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
      Minister for Employment                    Private & Confidential
      Department for Work & Pensions
      Caxton House
      Tothill Street                             Without Prejudice
      London
      SW1H 9DA

Dear Minister

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19th April 2011.

I was very concerned to receive yet another unsolicited contact from yourself as, given that the contents of my letter to the Deputy Prime Minister was clearly stated to be at the direct request of Baroness Shirley Williams, it is of concern to note that civil servants arbitrarily decided to prevent Mr Nick Clegg gaining access to detailed information when requested by a member of the noble House. I find this totally unacceptable, as will Baroness Williams.

I suggest that you are once again being misinformed by the civil service as the recent contact with the office of the Deputy Prime Minister does indeed contain much more detailed and damning evidence(1), when compared to my original report from June 2010(2), including the unacceptable involvement of corporate insurance giant UNUM as a welfare adviser to the DWP. When you consider that this insurance company was identified in 2009 as the second worst insurance company in America, by the American Association for Justice, and are actually banned from a number of states in America as well as a number of countries, including New Zealand(1), questions surely need to be asked as to why they are involved at any level with the welfare of British citizens?

Indeed, the previous DWP CMO, Professor Mansel Aylward, was rewarded for his support of Unum over many years with his own research unit, funded by Unum, and based at Cardiff University(1)(2). You will, therefore, appreciate why high calibre professionals involved with welfare dispute the independence of the Professor's research evidence, when exclusively funded by Unum, who are looking forward to flooding the UK market with their income protection (disability) insurance policies, just as in America.

The very detailed and disturbing evidence revealed in my further dedicated research, and presented as a letter to Lord Dannatt(1), is cause for serious concern Mr Grayling, and is now being distributed and accepted by members of the House of Lords, as well as concerned professionals, a selection of MPs and certain government select committees.

1. Letter to Lord Dannatt including detailed research evidence - 25th March 2011 2. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories - an independent research report by Mo Stewart - June 2010 It is unacceptable that the present DWP Chief Medical Officer had still failed to respond to my original report(2), months following receipt of your previous letter. Therefore, I took the liberty of writing to Dr Gunnyeon last month(3) and I trust I may receive his response very soon, as suggested in your most recent letter. Once I have heard from Dr Gunnyeon in response to my original report, he will also be provided with the additional and very damning evidence as exposed in my latest research(1), and now freely available to many other professionals.

I suggest that you should also be very aware that civil servants demonstrate(4), every time they write, that they are totally unfamiliar with the contents of the 500 page government contract with Atos. Substantial evidence demonstrating that Atos Healthcare (Atos Origin) continue to breach the contract on a daily basis, as well as employing medical staff who breach medical ethics, is not something that will go away, Minister, just because neither you nor your colleagues have managed to silence me.(1)(2)

Given the detailed evidence as reported by His Honour Judge Robert Martin(5), when President of the Appeal Tribunals, with recommendations from ten years of consecutive annual reports being totally ignored by government, it cannot be too much of a surprise to learn that those working in welfare hold out little hope that anything will improve in the short term, despite the fact that HH Judge Martin identified medical reports by Atos Healthcare that "failed to coincide with reality". Indeed, recommendations by the Work & Pensions Select Committee have also been totally ignored, so it is unclear why there is an ongoing attempt to defend the totally indefensible activities of a private contractor that terrorises the disabled British public?

Indeed, the unethical doctor who wrote a totally bogus medical report about his meeting with me is now being investigated by the General Medical Council(GMC) and everyone concerned with welfare are familiar with the fact that the medical reports provided by Atos Healthcare are free from all public accountability, as confirmed by the GMC and the Care Quality Commission. Also, the so called DWP Decision Makers are basic grade civil servants, totally incapable of comprehending medical reports, and they "rubber stamp" anything written by Atos staff, as identified by my original research and confirmed by the recent Harrington Review.

Furthermore, despite constant reassurances in the House of Commons, a civil servant writing to a dying man confirmed that, to date, the DWP have not actually bothered to conduct any audit on this œmulti million government contract with this corporate giant, and the only things monitored are the targets, including the numbers of welfare claimants removed from disability benefits. Hilary Brierly wrote the following: ".the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with its contractual obligations."(2) Clearly, saving money remains the only priority and the welfare of the chronically sick and disabled population are considered to be nothing more than an expensive inconvenience, as demonstrated by comments by the Minister for Welfare Reform, namely Lord Freud.(1)

Now that former staff members from Atos Healthcare have found the courage to expose the requirements of working for Atos Healthcare(6), which is totally unrelated to welfare and exclusively devoted to a reduction of the welfare budget, it is proving easier to expose this sinister government funded medical tyranny. For example: "If you turn up to your claimant interview in nice clothes, you've failed" she says. "If you turn up washed and with hair neat, you've failed." "And, because it's not done properly, thousands of people are losing benefits they are entitled to." "The job was making me sick," she said. "It's against my principles to treat people with long term illnesses in such a disgusting way, so I had to give up."(6)

1. Letter to Lord Dannatt including detailed research evidence - March 2011
2. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories 
   - an independent research report by Mo Stewart - June 2010
3. Letter to Dr Bill Gunnyeon, DWP CMO - 18th March 2011
4. Letter to John Murphy, Correspondence Manager CDMS - 23rd June 2010 
   (see contents of letter to Lord Dannatt)
5. President's Report 2007-08 by HH Judge Robert Martin 
   (see contents of letter to Lord Dannatt)
6. "Sick firm told us to catch out disabled people."  
   www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24468 

Government funded medical tyranny, using a totally unaccountable private contractor against the most vulnerable citizens, including our disabled veterans, cannot continue to be used as a deficit limitation programme and I trust, Minister, that this letter now permits you to be much better informed.

I hope not to receive any more letters from you attempting to silence me and I can confirm that your recent letter was not considered to be helpful in any way.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to:

Enclosures:

1. Letter to Lord Dannatt, including detailed evidence - March 2011
2. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories  - a research report by Mo Stewart, June 2010
3. Letter to Dr Bill Gunnyeon, DWP CMO - 18th March 2011
4. - see contents of letter to Lord Dannatt re letter to John Murphy, Correspondence Manager CDMS
5. - see contents of letter to Lord Dannatt ref report by HH Judge Robert Martin
6. 'Sick firm told us to catch out disabled people' - article featured in the 
   Socialist Worker, 9th April 2011
  

Date: 9th May 2011

To:   Dr W J Gunnyeon
      DWP Chief Medical Adviser                  Private & Confidential
      Level 2
      Caxton House
      Tothill Street                             Without Prejudice
      London
      SW1H 9DA

Dear Dr Gunnyeon

Many thanks for your letter of 3rd May and for taking the time to respond to my letter of 18th March.

Considering that the Minister for Employment advised last November that my original report had been sent to you, many people have been waiting six months to learn your opinion that was, sadly, both predictable and lamentable.

I note that you do not wish to enter into further correspondence regarding my original report but should advise that your claims are not supported by research and please be further advised that Dr Peter Carter, the Chief Executive of the RCN, does not share your explanation as to why the RCN refused to accredit the Atos nurse training.

Furthermore, whilst it is true to say that I have had extensive correspondence with both the SPVA and Atos Healthcare, I would dispute your suggestion that my concerns had been 'thoroughly investigated' by anyone. All that happened was that both administrations spent a long time attempting to silence me without success.

Given that I am a retired healthcare professional, and I reported a serious breach of medical ethics by a presumed doctor in the employ of Atos Healthcare, all efforts employed were simply to resist the complaint. Indeed, I have access to exchanges of emails that find the Medical Director of Atos Healthcare confirming that he never, personally, commits his opinions in writing for fear of possible investigation by the GMC. That admission alone should be setting off alarm bells and, certainly, the young doctor who visited me and produced a totally bogus medical report should make reference to the hallowed Hippocratic Oath that clearly states: "First do no harm."

Enclosed, for your further consideration please, is detailed additional very disturbing research evidence, now freely distributed and referenced by many professionals working in welfare. The information from the RCN Chief Executive, Dr Carter, can be found as enclosure number 4. This additional evidence was offered in the form of a letter to General Dannatt, whose known to be concerned for the welfare of disabled veterans, and I await his response. Furthermore, Baroness Shirley Williams has invited me to distribute this document to as many as possible in the House of Lords and that process is ongoing as and when funds permit as postage costs are substantial.

With reference to the pending PIP assessments, please be advised that the only 'customer' involved in this entire process is the DWP. Chronically sick and disabled people are not customers but they are the victims of a government funded medical tyranny, using a private contractor, whose medical assessments have been identified as "inadequate" by Professor Harrington and "totally unfit for purpose" by every front-line charity working in welfare within the UK. It is interesting to note that you claim that the PIP contract has yet to be awarded. I suggest that no other company will be in the running in the "fair and open competition" given the amount of Atos resources in place, nationwide, and I think we both know that the awarding of the contract can be presumed to be a foregone conclusion.

Furthermore, up to 500,000 people have been wrongly judged fit for work and disallowed incapacity benefit over the past 15 years according to Steve Griffiths, a former government consultant, and more damning evidence is being exposed daily.(2)

As previously advised, your response to my original report will be widely distributed and I invite you now to please examine the enclosed much more damning evidence as this problem is growing, I will not be silenced nor intimidated, and many professionals now access my detailed research.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Suggested essential reading:

• www.democraticdeficit.com/unum_provident_welfare_reform.html

Enclosures:

(1) Letter to Lord Dannatt plus detailed enclosures.
(2) Coalition plan to save 20% on disability benefits in the reverse of Robin Hood,
    feature  by Edward Lawrence of The Guardian.
(3) Letter to Chris Grayling, Minister for Employment.
(4) Letter to Brian Pepper, Atos Healthcare 1st March 2010
  

       "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
                                       Edmund Burke

                   "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
                                       John Pilger

                     ".never underestimate the power of persistence."
                                      Nelson Mandela

Date: 14th June 2011

To:   The Right Honourable Andrew Robathan MP                      Private & Confidential
      Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare & Veterans
      The House of Commons
      London                                                       Without prejudice
      SW1A 0AA

Re: Betrayal of chronically disabled older veterans

Two years of research has identified the unacceptably close relationship between the Department for Work and Pensions(DWP), Atos Healthcare, whose parent company is Atos Origin, together with the discredited American insurance giant known as Unum; formerly known as Unum Provident and First Unum.(1)

I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Unum are confirmed as the welfare advisers to the DWP(2), and that they were identified in 2009 as the second worst insurance company in America by the American Association for Justice(3). When known as Unum Provident, this company were identified as denying genuine disability claims(3)(4)(5) and, subsequently, were banned from 15 states in America and several countries worldwide, including New Zealand. Therefore, this past history begs the question as to why the British government have encouraged the involvement of Unum at any level, especially when it applies to the welfare of this nation's disabled veterans? The BBC offered evidence in an exclusive news report in November 2007.(5) Atos Origin, the parent company of Atos Healthcare, whose medical assessments of disabled British citizens and veterans are identified as being a copy of those used by Unum(6)(7), also just happened to have been awarded the IT contract for the 2012 Olympic Games, plus other lucrative government contracts too.(7) This is no coincidence and the evidence is conclusive.

My initial research concluded in June 2010 and now forms part of a much larger website, with details of both at the top of this letter.(6) Further evidence, revealing much more damning evidence about the abuse of chronically disabled veterans, was exposed in information supplied in a letter to General the Lord Dannatt(7) and subsequently distributed to front-line charities and welfare organisations within the UK, who were very grateful for the research evidence. Baroness Williams invited me to distribute my disturbing research evidence to other members of the House of Lords.

The enclosed letter was written to the Minister for Disabled People(8), in February, inviting Mrs Miller to offer an explanation for the identified government funded medical tyranny now imposed on to the chronically sick and disabled British public, including disabled veterans whom, I suggest, should be offered the best of all possible welfare support this nation has to offer.(8) However, the Minister has yet to offer me the courtesy of a personal reply to evidence that her introductory comments within the Disability Living Allowance(DLA) Reform consultation document were incorrect, demonstrating another Minister that fails to fully comprehend the disability legislation.

(1) Letter to Minister for Employment - 27th April 2011
(2) www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/tpca.pdf  - Annex C
(3) The ten worst insurance companies in America: 
    www.Denied-disability-claim.com/media/2009/02/tenworstinsurancecompanies.pdf 
(4) Unum Provident denied disability claims. 
    www.accfocus.org/international/item/2193-unum-provident-denied-disability-claims.html 
(5) BBC 10 pm news transcript - exclusive report ref Unum - 6th November 2007.
(6) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: 
    www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html 
(7) Letter to General the Lord Richard Dannatt - 25th March 2011
(8) letter to Minister for Disabled People - 7th February, 2011

The totally unacceptable IT medical assessment system used by Atos Healthcare, copied from that used by Unum, and using a computer programme instead of detailed medical examination, has been challenged by every national front-line charity working in welfare who identify the assessments as being unfit for purpose, but successive governments don't appear to be listening.(9)(10)

It was no coincidence that the award of War Pensions ceased in 2005 with the introduction of another system of compensation for military forces disabled in the service of the nation. However, that did result in all the older disabled veterans, in receipt of a War Pension, being left to the mercy of these unacceptable medical assessments by Atos Healthcare, with the resulting distress that that experience appears to afford to anyone who may be obliged to tolerate it.

The Service Pensions and Veterans Agency(SPVA) are meant to exist to support our disabled veterans, but are identical to the DWP, and spend all their time defending Atos Healthcare and demonstrating no concern whatsoever for the chronically disabled veterans. They are a disgrace.

During his time as the President for the Appeal Tribunals, His Honour Judge Robert Martin produced ten consecutive annual reports that all challenged the medical assessments provided by Atos Healthcare and insisted that the Atos medicals "failed to coincide with reality"(11) yet successive governments ignored all recommendations offered in every report. Therefore, you will appreciate that professionals and volunteer groups alike find little evidence to support the government's suggestion that these welfare reforms are meant to help people, as all evidence suggests that they are in place for no other reason other than a reduction of government expenditure.

As this government's representative responsible for our veterans I invite you to advise when this nation will demonstrate its duty of care to our disabled veterans? It will need a lot more than a Veterans' Day parade to rectify this betrayal and, given that disabled veterans have already endured a government medical assessment, to retain a War Pension, I see no need whatsoever for any disabled veteran to be reassessed to retain access to Disability Living Allowance(DLA). Indeed, I suggest that to conduct another government assessment for an identified chronically disabled veteran would be a waste of limited resources, and chronically disabled veterans should automatically, by definition, be exempt from any reassessment for their DLA.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired health professional

(9)  Macmillan Cancer Support, Failed By The System:
     www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/GetInvolved/Campaigns/Benefits/
     FailedByTheSystemReport.pdf 
(10) CAS: Unfit for purpose: 
     www.cas.org.uk/Publications/publications/Evidence+reports/
     unfit-for-purpose-scottish-cab-evidence-on-esa 
(11) Standard of Decision Making by the Secretary of State: 
     www.appeals-service.gov.uk/Documents/SSCSA_PresRep07-08FINAL.pdf 

Copied to:
General the Lord Dannatt, Baroness Jane Campbell, Baroness Wilkins, Judge Andrew Bano, 
Nick Clegg MP, Stephen Barclay MP, The Work & Pensions select committee, 
Chris Grayling - Minister for Employment, 
Maria Miller - Minister for Disabled People, Chris Francis - RAFA, 
Charley Downey - Trustee, The Forgotten Heroes, Front-line charities
  

Date: 20th June 2011

To:   General The Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL
      House of Lords                             Private & Confidential
      London
      SW1A 0PW                                   Without Prejudice

Thank you very much for your letter of 17th June and for your very kind offer of specific help.

It's true that my concerns unexpectedly escalated into a campaign. This was not my intention when I first began all this research, as a reaction to a visiting doctor from Atos Healthcare who actually breached medical ethics and produced a totally bogus medical report about me. Happily, that young man is now being investigated by the General Medical Council.

With reference to specific help needed by disabled veterans, please be advised that the government, and in particular Lord Freud, has now decided to introduce annual re-assessments for everyone in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which is an income that's about to be abolished and to be replaced with a much harsher benefit, namely the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

Indeed, Lord Freud appears to struggle with the fact that many of the disabled people now in receipt of DLA were awarded this income permanently, without any comprehension it seems that the majority of profound disability and chronic illness is actually, by definition, permanent. All reported evidence has confirmed that bogus DLA claims amount to no more than 0.5% of the entire budget, with 1.5% administrative error which is a common problem with all administration from the Department for Work and Pensions(DWP). (They made a mistake with my RAF Invalid Pension and funded the incorrect pension for 2 years.) It should be noted that DLA is the most secure of all benefit payments, as confirmed by national front-line charities. However, Lord Freud's stated intention is to reduce the numbers of DLA claimants by 20%, demonstrating that these reforms are simply to re-address a budget deficit and are totally unrelated to genuine welfare.

With reference to your specific help, I would be most grateful if you could please establish that a War Pension is, in effect, a government disability pension for disabled veterans, and it requires a government medical for any reassessment of %age disability. Therefore, having established that every War Pensioner is a veteran disabled in the service of this nation, I strongly challenge any need for our identified disabled veterans to have any re-assessment for their DLA or future PIP, let alone an annual re-assessment, as proposed by the present Minister for Welfare Reform. Not least, this constant re-assessment would be a total waste of limited resources as well as being an unnecessary concern and anxiety for our disabled veterans.

When considering that those of us too frail to contemplate paid employment, which is something else that Lord Freud appears to doubt, we already struggle with limited income and it is totally unacceptable that we should now live under a constant threat that DLA may be removed to balance the DWP's budget. The removal of DLA will have a catastrophic impact, not least because we access our Motability car that's exclusively funded by DLA. The removal of DLA will remove independent transport for our disabled veterans, apart from those of us at the highest levels of War Pensions, and this threat is unacceptable. The government keep moving the goal posts and most view these so called welfare reforms as an attack on the most vulnerable people in society. I am, therefore, suggesting that chronically disabled veterans should be totally exempt from any reassessment for their DLA.

There are two parts of DLA, namely the care package and the mobility package. The present administration of War Pensions correlates DLA for the higher awards of pension. For example, as soon as the War Pension rises to a 70% disability(like mine), the mobility part of the DLA is stopped and a mobility supplement is added to the War Pension, funded at a slightly higher rate, and this continues to offer access to a Motability car. As soon as the War Pension acknowledges an 80% or higher disability, DLA is stopped altogether and incorporated into the higher War Pension. Therefore, the disabled veterans under threat of these unnecessary annual DLA re-assessments are mainly those whose pensions vary up to a 70% disability, and someone should surely remind the government that a War Pension is not a benefit.

Given that the award of DLA is totally unrelated to employment, a fact that seems to escape the present Minister for Disabled People, and the majority of the long-term chronically sick or profoundly disabled people are unable to benefit from paid employment, there can be no justification to assess disabled veterans twice and the fact that they are in receipt of a War Pension is confirmation that they are, in fact, disabled. Therefore, if disabled enough to be awarded DLA, disabled veterans should not live under a constant threat to have it removed as, in my case, DLA represents over 20% of my entire monthly income. The loss of DLA would remove my car and, probably, my home too.

If your Lordship would be willing to offer support by establishing that we should be exempt from annual assessment of DLA or the new replacement PIP, this would help countless thousands of our older disabled veterans.

I hope I may look forward to your support.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to:

   Baroness Jane Campbell
   Baroness Rosalie Wilkins
   Baroness Shirley Williams
   Dame Anne Begg
   Judge Andrew Bano
   Dr Stephen Hall
   Dr Margaret McCartney
   Dr Christopher Johnstone
   The Work & Pensions select committee
   Adam Douglas - Chair, The Forgotten Heroes
   Charley Downey - Trustee, The Forgotten Heroes
   Various national front-line charities
  

Date: 23rd June 2011

To:   Mr John Murphy
      Commercial Directorate Medical Services         Private & Confidential
      Correspondence Manager
      Commercial Management of Medical Services
      Department for Work & Pensions
      Room 36
      Norcross Government Buildings                    Without Prejudice
      Norcross Lane
      Thornton
      Lancashire  FY5 3T

Dear Mr Murphy

Re: serious complaint re Atos Healthcare

I acknowledge receipt today of your lengthy document, which apologises for my recent disturbing and unnecessarily distressing experience that lasted almost two years, yet totally fails to accept that Atos Healthcare has acted inappropriately with the exception of a failure to co-ordinate the complaint. Your claims do indeed make interesting reading but you are seriously misinformed.

I will respond as best I can but I must advise that a copy of your letter defending the Contractor unreservedly will be forwarded to the Senior President of Tribunals, as an enclosure to my research report, and for whom my very detailed research has been conducted over the past 9 months. I confess that your defence of Atos Healthcare is quite overwhelming and it is clear that, no matter how much evidence is presented, the DWP will work very hard to dismiss it to enable this private company to continue to reduce government care costs; regardless of consequences to the innocent and unsuspecting victims of this company. We can't all be dismissed as making a "vexatious claim". A copy of your letter will also be handed to my adviser.

If you have indeed had access to all correspondence then you may need to be informed that I do not consider that the offer of £200 was as a "consolatory" payment, because that seriously underestimates the distress caused by the totally unacceptable conduct, and totally bogus medical report produced, by the visiting doctor from Atos Healthcare. There is no way that £200 could begin to reflect the amount of "upset caused by their experience" and I firmly believe that the company presumed that I could be silenced by the offer of £200 but it just didn't work. My integrity is valued at much more than £200 and is, in fact, priceless.

Furthermore, despite a belated apology from Dr Beswick, who refused to show me the courtesy of a personal response to my concerns, he was simply apologising for the fact that the young doctor's visit failed to meet professional standards. Yet, Dr Beswick persistently ignored the fact that the young doctor also compromised medical ethics, by writing a medical report that claimed that he had conducted a medical examination on my person, which was totally UNTRUE! His medical report was a total work of fiction from start to end, and no amount of apologies can remove this violation of medical ethics. The fact that the company failed to acknowledge this profound breach of medical ethics, together with your overwhelming support, simply enforces how very serious this situation is for the sick and chronically disabled people of this nation. Indeed, in keeping with Atos Healthcare and the SPVA, you fail to comprehend the serious significance of this dishonest young man, whose arrogance knows no limits, suggesting that both my doctor and myself had, in fact, made a bogus deterioration claim.

Given the contents of the emails between Dr Beswick and Dr Kitchen, to which you refer, I am more than a little amazed that you feel that this information was in anyway evidence that Dr Beswick had 'completed the investigation' into my complaint. The contents of the emails were expressing his concerns that I could not be silenced, and that I was about to make a formal complaint to the GMC, which is why Dr Beswick will not offer me the courtesy of a written reply as he fears a GMC investigation, as confirmed in his emails to Dr Kitchen. I have received no copy of any investigation Mr Murphy, so I have no idea to what you are refering with that statement? Then again, if you insist in hanging on every word as exclusively reported to you by the Contractor, and dismiss any and all other detailed evidence as presented by a medically qualified patient, the results will always be unacceptable because you are clearly employed to defend the indefensible.

Your strong defence of Atos Healthcare is indeed interesting, and it seems that you would appear to have a different copy of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare when compared to mine, and do please remember that the Contract is now available via the Internet - all 500 pages. I am afraid that you have been seriously misinformed. Furthermore, for your information Mr Murphy, I am not a customer!!! The DWP is the customer of this company. I am a patient, a veteran and certainly a victim of this private Contractor, but I am most certainly not a customer. If you have indeed seen all correspondence then you would have noted the numbers of times I have confirmed that to be described as a 'customer' is deeply offensive, yet you clearly use that terminology in your letter to me. It does appear to be an uphill battle to offer evidence and information that anyone at the DWP or Atos Healthcare will actually take on board; such is the authority of this company that has no public accountability whatsoever apart from via the Contract Manager.

I have no interest in your assurances Mr Murphy. I have been conducting research for the past nine months into this company, health permitting, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Contractor does indeed choose which parts of the Contract to adhere to, and which to overlook, and clearly you do not appear to have access to the same evidence that I have acquired. Breaches of contractual agreements can only be actioned if you know about them. Clearly you don't!

You really can't have it both ways Mr Murphy. On the first page of your lengthy letter, you claim that my complaint could have been dealt with much better, and much faster, had the communications between various Government Departments been more effective. The reason they weren't was because my on-going complaint with the Contractor was never reported to the SPVA yet, on another page, you claim that the Contractor does not need to identify any complaints to the Authority. Clearly, Atos Healthcare can't improve communications with government departments without revealing the complaint, which they resisted. You appear to think that this is a satisfactory arrangement. I am telling you that, when it comes to health with funding worth in excess of £80 million per year, it is sinister. According to the Contract, the Contractor is required to notify the Authority within 2 days whenever they receive a complaint. Perhaps that information is missing from your copy of the contract, but it is freely available on-line. Indeed, the fact that you claim that under the Contract "there is no actual requirement" for the company to notify the Authority that they have received a complaint is, frankly, ludicrous and if this is now true then it removes one of the very few safety nets in place for the public when dealing with this corporate giant. I am confident that the Senior President of Tribunals will be most interested in these latest claims, in contradiction of the Contract.

Your comments reference the action taken against the doctor who visited me are verging on offensive and are certainly missing the point Mr Murphy. Regarding the "..documenting of the clinical assessment findings to avoid any possible misunderstanding of the examination" all I can say is ???? which case are you actually referring to I wonder, as it clearly is not mine. The was no "misunderstanding of the examination" Mr Murphy because there was NO EXAMINATION undertaken whatsoever!! Indeed, must I remind you again that you are dealing with a retired health professional? You may indeed be satisfied that Atos Healthcare have taken the "appropriate management action" but, then again, you hang on every word the Contractor reports to you, and presume it to be true, then you can justify ignoring overwhelming evidence that you are being manipulated and mislead by this company. Understand me when I tell you that my evidence is overwhelming, and I am very happy to offer it under oath if necessary so, no matter how many times you attempt to excuse Atos Healthcare's totally unacceptable actions, it makes no difference and I will tell you what I have already told the company: I will not be silenced.

Every paragraph you write demonstrates that you are totally unfamiliar with what really happened in my case. Regardless of what should happen, and what you now claim in your letter, the Contractor was given vast amounts of detailed medical evidence about my deteriorating health and it was totally ignored as, in keeping with confirmation in the House of Commons, the evidence from the Contractor is priority for the Decision Makers and, if that then includes a totally bogus medical report, the patient/victim of this system is in a no win situation. One day I think you should read my research, which will eventually be published on-line, so others can benefit from my experience. The patient's medical reports are not presented to the so-called Healthcare Professional at the interview because they have already been provided months in advance together with the detailed deterioration paperwork, or are you overlooking the fact that I am a War Pensioner and not a civilian? As for you now claiming that ".it is expected that they look at these papers" and that the Healthcare Professionals are required "..to provide advice that is fair and impartial" all I can say is that you have a great deal to learn and your expectations and presumptions about the way the Contractor meets the demands of the DWP contract is as far away from reality as is possible to get. You may indeed believe that ".there is a requirement on them to ensure that all the factual information that they record is accurate" but, Mr Murphy, what do you do when it is bogus and a work of fiction? Nothing as far as I can tell apart from to defend the indefensible. Oh dear! It looks like you'll need even more persuading so I suggest you wait until you learn of any reaction to my research, which is about to be distributed. Then I'll be preparing my formal and very detailed complaint for the GMC. The only thing we are agreed upon is that it is a serious breach of professional standards - ethics - to make a bogus medical report about any patient. So, WHY do you presume I'm making a formal complaint to the GMC?? I have a feeling that you have not seen all the correspondence between myself and this company as, if you had, you would be much better informed. Indeed, I'll precise the most important details that you appear to have overlooked, as follows:

When at my home in December 2008 the Atos Healthcare doctor:

• REFUSED to provide any ID apart from a name badge despite being asked on no fewer than 3 separate occasions

• ignored all good medical practice

• compromised medical ethics

• treated me with utter contempt

• silenced me with a wave of his hands

• insisted that I was not "permitted" to speak other than to offer answers to his questions

• resisted eye contact and attempted to intimidate

• claimed to have completed a physical examination on my person when no examination had taken place

• sniggered at me, and laughed in my face

• ignored the fact that I am a retired health professional

• produced a medical report that was a total work of fiction and copied, verbatim, extracts of the medical evidence from parts of the previous 2006 medical examination

Now, do please tell me, which part of the above list do you fail to understand?

I am certain that Judge Robert Martin will be interested in your comments as you actually presume to distance Atos Healthcare from his annual reports by claiming that additional evidence will be reported at Appeal. You certainly do appear to believe in fairy stories, or anything the Contractor dreams to tell you, as long as it's as far away from reality as possible. Regardless of the excuses you have now compiled, you can't surely presume to dismiss evidence of doctors from Atos Healthcare consistently ignoring patient testimony, detailed medical evidence from Consultants as provided for the Atos Healthcare so called Healthcare Professional at interview, demonstrated to be ignored by the Contractor when they met the victim/patient/claimant, and the overwhelming evidence over the last 5 years that the situation is getting worse with each passing year. Indeed, your claims now explain why detailed evidence provided every year by Judge Martin are persistently ignored by the Government, so I'll explain to him so that he no longer needs to feel so frustrated that everything he publishes is overlooked at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. You are so wrong Mr Murphy, with countless numbers of Appeals not producing any additional evidence but simply that the Appeal offered the patient the opportunity that someone may actually be willing to believe them. I doubt that Judge Martin makes mistakes Mr Murphy and he is very adamant that the Atos Healthcare medicals are a very big problem as they often "fail to believe the applicants." I am wondering which part of that statement you may not understand? As for the information reported to you by Atos Healthcare, where is the evidence that it is in anyway accurate? I suggest you take another look at the annual reports from Judge Martin, as you do appear to be overlooking indisputable evidence from Justices from all the Tribunals, which may change once my research report has been circulated.

In closing Mr Murphy, it seems clear to me that the one over riding conclusion is that your remit is to defend Atos Healthcare because, no matter how much evidence is offered, the government's only concern is to reduce the costs of welfare. The chronically sick and disabled people of this nation make very easy targets, few could challenge bogus medical opinion convincingly, but I can and I will not be silenced no matter how many pages you send offering me limitless apologies whilst totally ignoring my detailed evidence, starting with the fact that the Healthcare Professional from Atos Healthcare did not conduct any medical examination whatsoever, wrote a totally bogus report and expected to be believed. Clearly, from your letter, you presume my challenge is bogus and I guarantee that you will live to be proved wrong.

I believe this draws our correspondence to a close.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to:

Enclosures:

Date: 27th April 2011

To:   House of Lords

WELFARE REFORM - REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED

The government's devotion to it's main priority, which is a dramatic reduction of the welfare budget, has meant that the concerns of respected front-line charities such as Citizens Advice(1), Macmillan(2), Scope(3), and the Disability Alliance(4) are all totally ignored. These welfare organisations, and many others, have collectively expressed serious concerns regarding growing evidence that the disability evaluation system, using the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), is flawed and totally unworkable - but the government isn't listening. Hence the planned legal challenge now being undertaken by the Disability Alliance, which may lead to a Judicial Review of the government's welfare reforms.

Government concern expressed for the welfare of the chronically sick and disabled people of this nation has been demonstrated to be totally insincere when employing the services of Atos Healthcare to assess them, and whose existence is dependent upon a 500 page contract provided by the Department for Work and Pensions(DWP). Indeed, the assessment of the long term sick and disabled population by a totally unaccountable private contractor, using computer software instead of a detailed physical examination, has been identified as unnecessarily traumatic.(1-5,7,8) This dangerously flawed medical assessment system uses a computer questionnaire, based on a points system, whilst the DWP dismiss the fact that the identical evaluation system, used by Unum (Provident) Insurance, was actually banned from fifteen states in America, and various countries worldwide. They were identified as being "disability denial factories"(5) by a judge in America, yet Unum Insurance are government advisers for UK welfare reforms.(5) Why?

Successful government propaganda has the able bodied general public convinced that the majority of people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit(IB) or Disability Living Allowance(DLA) are mainly scroungers. This is despite the fact that all evidence supports the fact that, out of the entire DLA budget, less than 0.5% were bogus applications with 1.5% admin error.(1,4,5,6) So why do the other 98% need to suffer other than because the chronically sick and disabled population make very easy targets? Since when is the opinion of medical experts, namely consultants, unacceptable as a level of a patient's ability to work other than when the DWP need to reduce costs? This is a very dangerous and medically unacceptable precedent, imported from America, that has basic grade administrators and an unaccountable assessment system deciding the fate of often desperately ill and chronically disabled people.

The DWP's resistance to employing qualified medical administrators has meant that basic grade administrators, known as Decision Makers, who confirm that they lack the ability to interpret medical evidence, have betrayed the sick and disabled people the WCA was meant to protect. The actual disability assessment, as reported by the contracted healthcare professional (HCP), is simply one extremely limited opinion derived from a dubious computer evaluation programme, as confirmed in the WCA review by Professor Harrington.(6) By definition, when all evidence of care, concern, compassion and human dignity is removed from any medical assessment, all that's left is medical tyranny as now funded by the British government against its own most vulnerable people.

The main responsibility of the DWP Decision Makers, as identified in the government contract with Atos Origin Healthcare Services, is to correlate all presented medical evidence including the detailed reports of GPs and consultants, who know the claimant and have actually treated them. Given that the opinions of these medical specialists are accepted in every court in the land, it seems more than reasonable to consider their clinical judgement when deciding if anyone is fit to return to work or to retain disability benefits. However, the Harrington Review(6) confirmed that Decision Makers routinely failed in their responsibility and exclusively accepted the opinion of the contracted HCP from Atos Healthcare, who enjoy "total immunity from all medical regulation" according to the General Medical Council(GMC) and the Care Quality Commission.(5) Therefore, large numbers of chronically sick and genuinely disabled people are being forced to appeal the often alarming decisions of totally unqualified junior civil servants.(1-6) Welfare agencies now advise that nothing has improved since the Harrington review, hence the challenge by the Disability Alliance.

This deeply flawed medical assessment process was identified for a long time by His Honour Judge Robert Martin when President of the Appeal Tribunals. For over a decade Judge Martin's consecutive annual reports constantly identified serious problems with the Atos medical assessments that "failed to coincide with reality"(5) yet, to date, none of His Honour's recommendations have been implemented by successive governments, as confirmed in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee.(7)

The evidence confirmed that almost half of all WCA Appeal Tribunals find in favour of the applicant(7) with 70% of claims being upheld for claimants who have representation at the Appeal Tribunal.(8) However, the stress and distress of the need to wait for months to attend an appeal, in order to retain financial support to which these invalids are morally entitled, is totally ignored. If these were civil cases, generous compensation would be offered as an acknowledgement of the unnecessary distress and suffering caused to the many victims. However, all successful applicants can expect is a reluctant reinstatement of their disability payments, and a back dated award to when they were forced to accept Jobseekers Allowance instead of Incapacity Benefit (IB) or, eventually, the new Employment Support Allowance.(ESA)

With plans to rapidly transfer IB to the new ESA and DLA being renamed and reallocated to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), all reference to incapacity or disability is being systematically removed. How can a chronically sick or disabled person, who will never again be fit enough to work, be allocated a benefit named Employment Support Allowance when employment is not a realistic possibility? How does this support anyone with a permanent serious illness or profound disability? What happened to welfare? The Minister for Welfare Reform happened to welfare. and it is cause for concern that the input of one unelected official can threaten the welfare provision for millions, with compassion replaced with a price tag.(9)

The Minister made his intentions clear in a press interview(9) in 2008 when he claimed that: ". somebody will see a gap in the market and make their fortune" and the article went on to claim that the Minister's idea was to eventually put the private sector in charge of the long-term unemployed. "There will be bonuses for hard cases, and no special treatment of disabled people or lone parents with children at school."(9) As Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud's past history in finance demonstrates a dangerous lack of comprehension that a serious illness or chronic disability can indeed be permanent, hence past awards of DLA permanently offered to invalids who, by definition and diagnosis, are clearly unfit to work.

Now, the most vulnerable people in our society, already faced with a limited quality of life, are being terrorised with the threat of an annual review of their financial support, despite their confirmed permanent inability to work.

Decisions need to be made to enable justice to be seen to be done. The DWP should either cancel this totally flawed disability assessment contract, or introduce a generous compensation scheme for the many hundreds of thousands of genuine chronically sick or disabled victims of this DWP medical tyranny, now masquerading as medical assessments, as conducted by Atos Healthcare.

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

References:

1. Citizens Advice: 
      www.citizensadvice.org.uk/not_working_march_2010_final.pdf 
2. Macmillan: 
      www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/GetInvolved/Campaigns/Benefits/FailedByTheSystemReport.pdf
3. Scope: 
      www.Scope.org.uk/sites/default/files/counting_the_cost.pdf
4. Disability Alliance: 
      www.disabilityalliance.org/dbcpress3.htm
5. Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: 
      www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html 
6. The Harrington WCA Review: 
      www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2010.pdf
7. Decision making and appeals in the benefits system.  
      Second Report of Session 2009-10 
      - the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee.
      www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/313/313.pdf
8. Citizens Advice Scotland: 
      Unfit for purpose - 
      http://www.cas.org.uk/Publications/publications/Evidence+reports/unfit-for-purpose
9. Welfare is a mess, says adviser David Freud
      www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1577313/Welfare-is-a-mess-says-adviser-David-Freud.html 
      Telegraph - 2nd Feb 2008.  David Freud interview with Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson.
  

Date: 29th June 2011

To:   Mr Stephen Barclay MP
      The House of Commons                       Private & Confidential
      London                                     Without Prejudice
      SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Barclay

Ref: 

Thank you for your letter of 28th June including the response from the Minister for Veterans, Mr Andrew Robathan MP, dated 20th June 2011.

Needless to say, I do believe that had the Minister been offered my further and more detailed letter to you of 11th June then his answer would not have been limited to generalities that are already well known.

As previously explained, war pensions vary a great deal and I am clearly not referring to any war pensioner with a small pension. However, the review medicals for war pensions are every bit as distressing as those suffered by other victims of the Atos Healthcare(AH) medical tyranny, and I do believe that you are very familiar with the detailed evidence following my unacceptable and totally bogus AH medical assessment(1). In fact, the doctor who visited me from AH is now being investigated by the General Medical Council. Furthermore, the Minister should be advised that not all war pensioners are very old and some of us are still of working age, hence my concerns given the contents of his letter.

A war pension medical is another government medical using AH and, for those of us with identified extremes of disability, who are already allocated an Unemployability Supplement, due to a confirmed and permanent serious disability, this threat of yet another medical by AH is unacceptable. Therefore, I suggest that there is no possible justification to force yet another medical assessment to again confirm serious disability to retain the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or the new Personal Independence Payment(PIP). Clearly, this would be a total waste of resources and cause needless anxiety and distress to those who are already living with a seriously reduced quality of life.

In anyone's language, an identified Unemployability Supplement means that the veteran is totally unfit to consider paid employment for any reason, and most live with extremes of pain as well as profound disability. QED, there is no possible valid reason to insist that any chronically disabled veteran, already identified by the government as being totally unfit for paid employment due to confirmed extremes of disability, should be required to have an additional assessment for DLA or PIP. That income should be guaranteed to our seriously disabled older veterans.

Do please bear in mind that access to DLA for social care is the one thing that local authorities look for when offering care support in the veteran's home. If this is removed, due to a discredited assessment by AH, then our chronically disabled veterans run the risk of losing their carers who permit them to enjoy independent living within their own homes.

(1) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html This also applies to veterans living in care homes who run the risk of losing the mobility component of DLA, thus removing the vital Motability car, as proposed by the Minister for Welfare Reform whose past history is clearly in finance, and the welfare needs of the chronically disabled appear to be of no concern.(5)

This constant threat of yet another government medical assessment is unacceptable, is causing unnecessary distress to our seriously disabled war pensioners, and that distress can be removed by not requiring anyone with a war pension in excess of 60% disability to need any further medical assessments for DLA and/or PIP. Once the disability is acknowledged as being at 80% then all DLA is removed and a higher war pension is provided. A confirmed 70% disability provides access to a mobility supplement added to the war pension, thus removing DLA for mobility. Therefore, this suggested limitation would only be relevant to the seriously disabled veterans with disabilities at between 60% - 70% disability who are, quite clearly, seriously and permanently disabled.

I concur that, in theory at least, the assessments for war pensions and DLA are meant to assess different things. However, once a veteran is at a level of identified profound disability, that means they can never again access paid employment, then that subtle difference is quite meaningless and that is my clinical opinion as a retired health professional. No other seriously disabled war pensioner should be exposed to my experience and this level of confirmed disability should actually guarantee DLA. Therefore, I totally refute the need for any DLA re-assessment.

Furthermore, now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Armed Forces Covenant is to be enshrined in law, claiming that "..wounded servicemen and women will get VIP care..." it is time to demonstrate this nation's commitment to those of us seriously disabled in the service of our country, in years gone by, rather than dismissing us to the activities of a totally unsupervised private medical contractor, who has already been identified as providing unacceptable levels of medical assessment.(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6)

The House of Commons Work & Pensions Committee have attempted to draw attention to the many serious problems identified when using Atos Healthcare for medical assessments, and this same company are now also involved with the re-assessment of our older war pensioners. The totally unacceptable experiences of many have been ignored by government with evidence from Professor Harrington being exclusively acknowledged, when detailed reports offering serious cause for concerns by Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland, MacMillan and the Disability Alliance are all disregarded.(1),(2),(3),(4,(5),(6)

I trust you will please raise these much more detailed queries with the Minister and provide him with a copy of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired health professional

(1) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: 
    www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html 
(2) Atos Healthcare unacceptable treatment of seriously ill people: 
    www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html 
(3) www.cas.org.uk/Publications/publications/Evidence+reports/
    unfit-for-purpose-scottish-cab-evidence-on-esa 
    - an example of the many disturbing reports from national welfare agencies 
      identifying unacceptable experiences of clients involved with Atos Healthcare. 
      70% success at appeal with representation.
(4) Citizens Advice serious concerns regarding hastily introduced DLA reforms
    www.citizensadvice.org.uk/citizens_advice_response_to_the_dwp_consultation_on_dla.pdf 
(5) DLA Reform Consultation Response – Jan 2011
    www.justice2008.org/DLA_REFORM_CONSULTATION_-_Response_-_Jan2011_-_FINAL.pdf 
(6) MacMillan Cancer Support: Failed by the system
    www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/GetInvolved/Campaigns/Benefits/FailedByTheSystemReport.pdf 

Copied to:

(1) Dr Stephen Hall
(2) Adam Douglas – Chair, the Forgotten Heroes
(3) Charley Downey – Trustee, the Forgotten Heroes
(4) General the Lord Dannatt
(5) Baroness Jane Campbell
(6) Baroness Rosalie Wilkins
(7) Henry Rowlands - CAB
(8) Chris Francis – RAFA
(9) The Work & Pensions Committee
(10)  The Joint Committee for Human Rights

[Letter sent on 16 August 2011 
        from Mr Stephen Barclay MP, House of Commons, London SWlA OAA]

                                  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
                                  FLOOR 5 ZONE B MAIN BUILDING
                                  WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB

                                  Telephone: 020 7218 9000 (Switchboard)

THE RT HON ANDREW ROBATHAN MP
MINISTER FOR DEFENCE PERSONNEL WELFARE AND VETERANS

Our ref: D/Min...                                   1 August 2011

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your letter dated 7 July on behalf of your constituent Mrs S... of ... concerning War Pensions.

As I explained previously when assessing individuals for the replacement for the Disability Living Allowance, the Department for work and Pensions (DWP) will be using a wide variety of evidence, including evidence from other assessments such as for a war pension. However, the assessment used to confirm a percentage disablement under the War Pension Scheme (WPS) is designed specifically for the purposes of that scheme and would not itself go into enough detail to determine eligibility for different schemes, administered by other Departments.

DWP have advised my officials that they do not think it right to judge people purely on the type or level of impairment they have, labelling individuals by these impairments and making blanket decisions about benefit entitlement. They recognise that people lead varied and often complex lives, with differing circumstances and needs - and that they do not fit neatly into boxes. The new Personal Independence Payment reflects this, providing support tailored to these personal circumstances. That is why the new assessment is being designed to consider an individual's personal circumstances and the support they need, rather than basing eligibility on any medical condition or percentage level of disability. The assessment will take account of the fact that many people have complex support needs and more than one impairment or health condition.

DWP have also confirmed that they are aware that for the purposes of the War Pensions Scheme injured service personnel have their medicals undertaken by practitioners with experience and training in specific service related conditions and impairments, They have also confirmed that this is likely to be an invaluable source of information and that the use of such information might reduce unnecessary duplication of work and could remove additional and unnecessary burdens for injured service personnel.

However, it is an important part of the assessment process for most individuals to have a face-to-face consultation with a trained independent assessor, allowing an in-depth look at their circumstances and giving individuals the opportunity to put across their own views of the impact of their impairment on their everyday lives. This approach will ensure that decisions reflect the best evidence.

No decisions have yet been taken on the delivery model for the assessment and DWP are still in the process of developing the new claims and assessment processes.

I hope this explains the current situation.

[signature]

THE RT HON ANDREW ROBATHAN MP

Date: 10th September 2011

To:   Professor Malcolm Harrington CBE             Private & Confidential
      WCA Independent Review
      6th Floor, Section B                         Without Prejudice
      Caxton House, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA

Re:   WELFARE REFORM - REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED

Enclosed, for your personal information, please find a copy of a highly sensitive report now distributed to a total of 360 members of the House of Lords, in advance of the welfare reform debate on 13th September.

Given the significance of the exposed evidence within the report, it has also been distributed to large numbers of professionals working within the care professions, to frontline charities, MPs, online disability support groups, Judge Andrew Bano and to two government select committees. Therefore, whilst highly sensitive, I do not intend to keep this exposed disturbing information secret.

The only people who will never know the content of this report is the general public, given the total press ban on ever mentioning anything related to Unum Insurance. Reported claims in some text advise thatUnum Insurance are valued at $4 Trillion. This is incorrect and should advise that Unum Insurance are part of the $4 Trillion US healthcare industry [1] and, when known as Unum Provident Insurance, they were identified as the 2nd worst insurance company in America by the American Association for Justice. It is not terribly comforting to know that our welfare state is dominated by the influence of this corporate giant with the most diabolical past history against their own clients.

I should also advise that I have been conducting research now for about two years, health permitting, and I have had the great privilege to have contact with a variety of high calibre professionals working within the medical, healthcare and welfare professions. To date, I can find no other medical or healthcare professional who confirms your insistence that the DWP Decision Makers should not be Medical Administrators. The present Decision Makers may well be intelligent Professor, but they are clearly under qualified for the important role they are expected to carry out. It is a given that, without the relevant experience and qualifications, these administrators are incapable of deciphering the detailed medical language that is inevitable in every specialist medical report and increasing their self esteem, as in your report, can't increase their skills or qualifications. Qualified Medical Administrators would easily identify, from diagnosis, all those whose health is so poor that they should never be troubled and they could prevent this fear and anxiety now imposed on everyone who are too ill or profoundly disabled to work but who must exist on benefits.

With reference to your most recent letter, I can certainly confirm that I do not claim, request nor, with the greatest of respect, do I require your personal endorsement of my research. The only endorsement I need I already enjoy, and that is from other chronically sick and disabled people within the UK who tolerate this government funded medical tyranny, masquerading as the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), using the services of a totally unaccountable private contractor and a discredited computer software. The evidence against the WCA is overwhelming but the only opinion the DWP will accept is yours, so the suffering continues unabated. How can any credible assessment of the ability of the sick and disabled population fail to consider variable conditions and extremes of pain? Yet, this is what the British people now endure to retain disability benefits which are needed for their very survival. Forcing disabled people off disability benefits onto Jobseekers Allowance, and employing additional large numbers of DWP staff to harass and bully these people, when there are no jobs to be found even for the able bodied unemployed, is simply another form of government tyranny against those least able to protest.

I have no doubt that you believe that your reviews are a valuable contribution to the assessment process. However, my concerns are for the numbers of future victims of this torment, and the countless thousands of future additional totally incorrect decisions, that will guarantee an enforced Appeal in order to find some sort of justice. If the government continue to disregard all recommendations by the Senior President of the Appeal Tribunals, the select committees and the frontline charities then, clearly, nothing can or will improve. I regret that the annual report by your good self on the WCA by Atos, and not on a system best suited for purpose and need, hardly offers any comfort to the hundreds of thousands now living in fear of their future Atos assessment.

Please also be advised that the DWP's insistance that the high number of successful appeals - now running at 70% with representation - is due to the claimants arriving at the appeal with masses of additional medical evidence is not confirmed by research. Indeed, His Honour Judge Robert Martin is quite insistent that it is more to do with the fact that there is a chance that "they may actually be believed" that is the overwhelming factor that leads to the high numbers of successful appeals. It is also a very sad fact to discover that this discredited assessment system is now also being used against our disabled veterans, to resist increasing War Pensions for disabilities gained in service to this nation when in uniform. This is a national disgrace, when our forces are committed in war zones, as the British government resist supporting our older disabled veterans.

What is still missing is any compensation for the months of distress and trauma suffered by these innocent victims whilst waiting for their Appeal Tribunal. Nothing can ever really compensate for the profound stress and emotional trauma they suffer, but it should be acknowledged.

I wish you no harm Professor. Clearly, you have a job to do and you cannot concern yourself with what are political decisions. However, you surely cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence of distress by hundreds of thousands of people and, with the greatest of respect as always, from your reported comments you do not appear to comprehend that any official annual report will do little to allay any fears.

I am now taking an enforced rest as my health has plummeted. In time I have no doubt that I will need to conduct research once again, and I live in hope that someone will acknowledge the evidence within this report before it is too late.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to: Baroness Campbell, Baroness Masham, Baroness Wilkins, Baroness Gardner, Professor the Baroness Lister Richard Hawkes - SCOPE, Neil Coyle - Disability Alliance, Tom Pollard - MIND, Mike Hobday - Macmillan, Dr Stephen Hall, Prof Paul Gregg, Prof Peter Beresford, the W&P Select Committee, the Health Select Committee, HH Judge Andrew Bano, Phil Lockwood - Black Triangle Campaign, Dame Anne Begg MP, Stephen Barclay MP, General the Lord Dannatt, Adam Douglas - The Forgotten Heroes.

Enclosures: WELFARE REFORM - REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED

===================================

[1] Unum Group revenue was $10.19 billion in 2010, $10.09 billion in 2009, $9.98 billion in 2008, $10.52 billion in 2007, $10.54 billion in 2006 and $10.44 billion in 2005 (Source: www.wikinvest.com/stock/Unum_Group_(UNM)).

More financial information is published on the Unum and Business http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusinessunum.html#financial) page.

                                Leader of the House
                                   House of Lords
                                  London SW1A 0PW

                                Telephone 020-7219 3200

Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde
psleaderofthelords@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

14 September 2011

Dear Mrs S...

Re: Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled

Thank you for your letter of 7 September in which you outline your concerns around the Governments proposed welfare reforms in general, but on the future of healthcare funding in particular.

I read your thoughts with interest especially as this subject is a focus for parliamentary consideration at the moment.

I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter on to the Minister responsible for Welfare Reform, who will no doubt give it his attention.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write.

STRATHCLYDE

Date: 20th September 2011

To:   Mr Stephen Barclay MP
      South Fens Business Park
      Fenton Way
      Chatteris PE16 6TJ

Dear Mr Barclay

Ref: DLA assessment exemptions

Thank you very much for taking the time to raise my queries with the Minister for Veterans, Andrew Robathan MP, and for a copy of his reply. I regret that I must advise that the Minister's reply is utterly and totally unacceptable, as it will be to others who fully comprehend chronic, permanent long-term illness and disability.

Medically, administratively and financially, the Minister's explanation beggars belief and is clearly guided by unacceptable DWP input, who view all benefit claimants as bogus until proved otherwise. They are guided by the input of the unelected Minister for Welfare Reform whose only skills are in finance, not welfare.

Using the excuse that I have a War Pension, which may be awarded due to injury in the field, is an excuse not an explanation. My condition is a profound, deteriorating, chronic and permanent disability. This is due to a secondary permanent illness, as contracted via a classified virus, when on detachment to the Institute of Aviation Medicine. It is not a battlefield injury. I was in the RAF Medical Branch and not a frontline soldier !

Medically speaking, the Minister's comments are without precedent, are unacceptable and totally unjustifiable. A confirmed illness or disease is a confirmed illness or disease Mr Barclay. Given that I have been visited by a Consultant, representing the Appeal Tribunal, who confirmed my permanent and serious disabilities, I totally reject the Minister's claim that I am still required to be reassessed to keep access to my DLA which, by definition, is a benefit offered to disabled people. Having had my serious disabilities confirmed by a Consultant, that includes extremes of pain 24/7, I totally reject that there is any need whatsoever to constantly be reassessed for any disability benefit.

The DWP's instructions that a Consultant's opinion for a War Pension "...would not in itself go into enough detail to determine eligibility for different schemes..." is civil service speak for avoiding the question. This is utterly absurd given my diagnosis which is permanent, painful, incurable and unrelated to battlefield injuries. As I've told you before Mr Barclay, I CANNOT get better and I utterly reject the suggestion, by medically unqualified DWP civil servants and not by medically qualified senior staff, that there can be any justification for someone like me to be annually reassessed. You will appreciate the absurdity of this suggestion I think, and you will also appreciate that many other chronically sick and disabled veterans are awaiting the outcome of my enquiry.

Whilst the theory of not "labelling individuals by their impairments" makes good press headlines, nevertheless, it is also nothing short of medical tyranny if the diagnosis is to be ignored by totally unqualified administrators. I use Diamorphine daily for pain control, and my profound disability is not in doubt by anyone medically qualified so to judge.

Given that at times I am struggling for breath, I totally reject any need for my access to disability benefits to be annually reassessed other than by a paperwork exercise. This would only be acceptable if conducted by a qualified medical administrator. An unqualified civil servant, using the exalted title of 'Decision Maker' who are, by their own admission, totally unqualified to make decisions regarding medical matters, is unacceptable. This nonsense is a copy of a system used by the totally discredited Unum Provident Insurance. They were identified as the 2nd worst company in America by the American Association for Justice, they are advisers to the government since 1994, and they were fined $600 million due to their bogus assessments of their clients. The enclosed report offers more detailed evidence.(encl 1)

Given the exposure of the unacceptable activities of Atos Healthcare in my previous research report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories, the Minister's comments making reference to a "...face-to-face consultation with a trained independent assessor, allowing an in-depth look at their circumstances..." beggars belief. The Minister really needs to catch up with the multitude of professional reports from frontline charities; especially from Citizens Advice and MacMillan. They all, without exception, condemn the so called 'assessments' as conducted by Atos Healthcare as being unfit for purpose. As I believe I have already mentioned, I will never again permit a staff member from Atos Healthcare into my home, and I am physically unable to consider a journey to any assessment centre, anywhere. My disabilities are not in dispute Mr Barclay. The bogus assessments conducted by Atos Healthcare are, as confirmed in ten annual reports by His Honour Judge Robert Martin when President of the Appeal Tribunals. I suggest the Minister reads those too...

I would be most grateful if you could please now offer the Minister a copy of this letter and invite his personal input, and not the repeated input from the DWP. Short of a miracle cure, the suggested repeated assessments are medically unjustified, administratively incompetent and financially a total waste of money for the DWP.

I humbly suggest the Minister benefits from the facts before he accepts the standard civil service excuse for medical tyranny, as identified in the damning report: Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled, as now accessed by 360 members of the House of Lords. A copy is enclosed for your personal attention and I suggest you copy the report to the Minister.

A copy of this letter will be provided for General the Lord Dannatt, who is aware of this continued attack on disabled veterans who have served this nation. I shall also copy it to HH Judge Andrew Bano, who will keep HH Judge Robert Martin informed.

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to: Dr S Hall, General the Lord Dannatt, Adam Douglas - Chair The Forgotten Heroes, HH Judge Andrew Bano

Enclosures: Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled

Date: 24th September 2011

To:   Lord McNally
      The House of Lords
      London SW1A 0PW

Dear Lord McNally

Ref: Human Rights and Civil Liberty abuses: DWP and Atos Healthcare

I understand that you are the Minister of State for Justice and, as such, I attach very sensitive, detailed research evidence regarding the many abuses of the £100million per annum DWP contract, as conducted by Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd Medical Services; commonly known as Atos Healthcare. Please excuse this direct contact but, I regret, I do not find departmental administrators reliable when offering sensitive and damning information.

Please take note that the 'medical assessments' conducted by Atos Healthcare are a replica of those conducted by the US corporate insurance giant Unum Insurance. Formerly known as Unum Provident Insurance, this company has been involved with the DWP since 1994, when the then DWP Chief Medical Officer, Prof Mansel Aylward, introduced this highly discredited American insurance company to the UK government. Unum continue to fund the Professor as Director at the Unum Centre at Cardiff University, a position Professor Mansel has occupied following his departure from the DWP.

Also, and of much greater concern, when trading as Unum Provident Insurance this US company were fined many, many times in the US and, eventually, they were fined $600million and ordered to re-open almost 300,000 previously closed disability claims. This is something the company has still failed to complete years later. The detailed and disturbing research evidence: Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled refers, and is now enclosed for your information. Why this dangerous company were not closed down by the US government remains a mystery.

Therefore, the question must be asked as to why this discredited US corporate insurance giant is involved in any way with the welfare of British citizens??

Please also understand that, as a disabled female veteran and former healthcare professional, the enclosed research report has been widely distributed and was quoted by two noble members in the recent welfare reform debate in the House of Lords. Furthermore, given the serious nature of the disturbing evidence in the report, I do not consider this evidence to be limited to a constituency matter although my MP is fully informed.

You will please note the enclosed recent letter from the Leader of the Lords and I await with interest the input from the unelected Minister for Welfare Reform, whose previous life as Vice President for a Swiss banking corporate institution only confirms the Minister's total incompatibility for the Ministry he now commands without challenge. The enclosed evidence includes testimony from the Minister that confirms that he has no comprehension whatsoever regarding chronic and serious illness, or profound disability, and this is why this nation's disabled community live with such fear. The Minister for Welfare Reform's knowledge regarding disability is that it costs a lot of money, which is his particular expertise. Breaches of human rights and civil liberties are identified, and are cause for serious concerns, yet the DWP continue to dismiss all evidence from frontline charities and high calibre professionals, and only accept input by Professor Harrington.

Given the overwhelming evidence that 40% of DWP decisions based on the Atos assessments are overturned on Appeal, and this figure rises to 70% with representation at Appeal, I am interested to learn why the Secretary of State for Justice has been noted by his silence on what is a breach of a £100 million per annum DWP contract on a daily basis. Indeed, if you manage to read the full research report, you will discover that, together with identified breaches of human rights, there are also breaches in contract which are widespread and very easily demonstrated.(1) (2) (3)

Perhaps you could please encourage the Secretary of State for Justice to now afford some of his valuable time to addressing this serious problem, with daily breaches of a £100million per annum contract, as the UK take another step towards the US healthcare system, funded by insurance. Unlimited testimony of medical tyranny, as funded by the DWP, is widespread. Evidence demonstrates that, within a few months of being assessed, disabled victims of this tyranny are required to be re-assessed with constant threats of the removal of their benefits that they need for survival. Therefore, comparisons with previous identified medical tyranny against disabled people in years gone by, during WW2, cannot be a total surprise. For exampIe, I have just been assessed for my War Pension yet, despite the fact that I have an Unemployability Supplement as I am too ill to work, and can't ever recover, the DWP are attempting to insist that I also need to be reassessed for my DLA. This is DWP tyranny and dangerous nonsense.

Quite clearly, the Minister for Welfare Reform is unchallenged, the Minister for Disabled People demonstrates every time she speaks that she has no comprehension of profound disability, and both Ministers are unconvincing in their claimed concerns for the many and growing numbers of innocent victims of this government funded medical tyranny, masquerading as disability assessments, and generously funded by the DWP.

500,000 people have now been unjustly denied disability benefits and wrongly found fit for work(2). Since the DWP disregard all evidence offered by all authorities, it's surely time for Justice to take a stand before this nation descends into anarchy due to this US imposed nightmare of the constant attacks on the chronically sick and disabled population. We make easy targets. As for the bogus assessments, all evidence points to only 0.5% bogus claims, with 1.5% admin error. So, why do the other 98% need to suffer??

The fact that the committee stage of the welfare reform bill will not take place in Chamber only accentuates the distrust now held by the entire disabled population, and I refer you to the contribution made to the welfare reform debate by Baroness Jane Campbell in particular.(4)

Despite the fact that the major frontline charities all confirm that the 'assessments', as conducted by Atos Healthcare, are totally unfit for purpose, the government have totally disregarded all reports including the 10 consecutive annual reports by HH Judge Robert Martin as President of the Appeal Tribunals. The government also totally disregarded critical evidence of daily breaches in contract, as well as the clearly identified medical tyranny now imposed on the UK's chronically sick and disabled population by a private contractor whom, to date, have had no audit despite claims to the contrary in the House of Commons.(1)

The DWP do tend to hide behind Atos Healthcare and resist all evidence as to the atrocities, and needless human despair generated, that are very easily demonstrated.(1)(3)

Unfortunately, Dr Gunnyeon as the present DWP Chief Medical Officer broke the first rule of writing, as he wrote in temper when writing to me. I am happy to enclose my reply as it seems that I appear to irritate the Chief Medical Officer, who has not managed to silence me to date. Reports by the W&P select committee have attempted to expose the dangerous limitations of permitting a private contractor to be involved with the welfare of this nation's sick and disabled population to no avail.(1) Indeed, even the Business Secretary, Dr Vince Cable, has now confirmed in writing that the Atos assessments have been 'a disaster' so far..... So why keep them at a cost of £100 million per annum???

Minister, before being tempted to remove yourself from any responsibility, may I please suggest that this matter should be of particular concern to the Department of Justice, with overwhelming evidence of abuses of human rights and civil liberties as well as breaches of a large DWP contract. Quite clearly, if a disabled person's Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is confiscated due to a compromised and unacceptable 'assessment', the victim will lose DLA and their Motability car that's usually funded by it. This is tyranny.

Furthermore, Professor Harrington, with whom I have exchanged a number of letters and who invited my permission to access my original research for his studies, suddenly wrote a very defensive letter claiming that he didn't 'endorse' my research when no-one had claimed that he had. Oh dear! I wonder why these people are becoming quite so sensitive or, could it possibly be, that my research is being noticed in high places and the Professor is under pressure to try to silence me when no others have managed to achieve that goal?

In closing, I invite you not only to please access all the information now provided but also to offer it for the personal attention of the Secretary of State for Justice. An able bodied unelected Minister, with the title of Minister for Welfare Reform and no experience of the daily struggles, the needs and the vast variances of disabilities, has no business making decisions that impact on the welfare of millions of people who already face life with a disadvantage and, sometimes, live with constant extremes of pain.

Perhaps the Department for Justice may now offer some hope and comfort to the chronically sick and disabled population where the DWP have offered medical tyranny masquerading as welfare reform?

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

(1) www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/03/incapacity-benefit-compass-survey-dwp?intcmp=239
(3) www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/jul/25/disability-benefits-atos-government-hiding
(4) www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-09-13a.658.0
  

Date: 4th October 2011

To:   Baroness Meacher
      The House of Lords
      London SW1A 0PW

Ref:  WELFARE REFORM BILL

As an introduction, may I please inform you that I am a medically retired former healthcare professional and a not too old female War Pensioner, although I prefer the title of disabled veteran.

I am contacting you as I wish to offer my personal gratitude, and sincere congratulations, for your valuable contribution to the recent lengthy welfare reform debate in the House of Lords, held on September 13th. In particular, I wish to thank you for your insistance of the need for qualified staff at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as Decision Makers, which continues to be resisted by Professor Harrington, engaged by the DWP to consider the implications of the introductions of these tyrannical welfare reforms against the most vulnerable people within the UK.(1)

Over the years since being disabled out of service I have attempted to retain my independence by finding a quality of life being involved with a variety of charities, and working voluntarily when able. As my health has continued to deteriorate I have, in recent years, occupied myself at home by offering administration for the smaller charities and, in the past couple of years, I have been drawn to research as more and more atrocities against the disabled population became apparent.

I must declare my interest as I am in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and there is a possibility that I too may need to endure yet another discredited assessment by Atos Healthcare in order to retain it. However, I insist that, having just had a medical assessment confirmed by a Consultant, on behalf of the appeal tribunal for my War Pension, I totally reject the DWP's attempt to insist that I must endure this medical tyranny again, having had it recently confirmed that not only am I seriously disabled but that my War Pension includes an Unemployability Supplement, confirming that I will never again be well enough to consider paid employment. That detail alone should confirm my eligibility for DLA, yet this doesn't appear to be the case according to the Minister for Veterans.(2) My response to my MP, Stephen Barclay, is now enclosed for your information.(3) DLA is totally unrelated to employment and is a significant fact that does appear to escape the present Minister for Disabled People, according to her recent comments, and she is another Minister engaged with welfare whose past history is in finance.

The battle to transform this tyrannical welfare reform bill into a workable and affordable welfare system, that is acceptable to and not feared by the chronically sick and disabled UK population, is an uphill struggle given the fact that the assessments as conducted by the present corporate contractor, Atos Healthcare, have been consistently identified as being totally unfit for purpose by the main frontline charities and, in particular, by the Disability Alliance, Citizens Advice and Macmillan Cancer Support.(4)

My interest in research was incentivised by personal experience when I was subjected to a home visit by a staff member from Atos Healthcare for a reassessment of my War Pension. This young man presumed to refuse to offer a lone, disabled, female veteran any form of identity despite being invited so to do no less than three times during the disturbing interview. This staff member, who claimed to be a doctor, then presumed to attempt to intimidate me by refusing eye contact, silenced me with a wave of the hand to prevent me speaking and firmly instructed me that I was only 'permitted' to speak in answer to his direct questions. This is the totally unacceptable consequence of introducing a corporate giant into welfare, who are 'free from all public accountability' as confirmed by both the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission.(4)(5) Therefore, the general public have none of the usual protection expected from any medical assessment, and this adds to the burden of a discredited assessment system when using computer softwear that isn't fit for purpose. www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html refers.

Given my disturbing personal experience and as a former healthcare professional, I began investigating Atos Healthcare and my initial research report, completed last summer, identified a disturbing reality and first alerted me to the inclusion of a discredited US corporate insurance giant in the background of UK welfare since 1994.(4)(5) Once you have accessed the detailed and disturbing information provided in the original report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories(5) you may wonder at the need to produce my most recent report, namely Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled(4). I confess that it is not presented using the more usual diplomatic writing but, as confirmed during consultations with the frontline charities, it was the only way to make sure the detailed evidence was accessed by government as opposed to being totally ignored, as tends to happen to every report produced by the main frontline charities.(4) Whilst the more forward tone of my report may have raised eyebrows, it has also raised awareness, and I have had many encouraging letters from members of the noble House as the Bill moves into Grand Committee stage for what I hope will be much more in depth scrutiny.

A recent letter from Lord Strathclyde, as Leader of the House of Lords, expressed his interest and advised that he's forwarded my research to the Minister for Welfare Reform.(6) I am not nearly as convinced as Lord Strathclyde that the Minister will actually respond.

The unelected Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord David Freud, was a previous government adviser catapulted to his own Ministry following the last election, and enjoys an authority that few are permitted to challenge. Yet, the Minister's past experience is as the Vice President for a Swiss financial conglomerate and, by his own admission, he has no experience of welfare and, by his comments, he has confirmed that he also has no concerns for welfare.(4) Together with the Minister for Disabled People, whose past experience is also in finance, this government department in association with an IT corporate giant, have reigned tyranny over the most profoundly sick and disabled people in the UK without concern for consequences except for a cost reduction. Money is the only priority, and the reduction of the costs of the welfare budget the only priority as all evidence of care, concern and compassion are removed. Whilst the need to reduce expenditure is a given, it surely cannot be at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our society using a corporate giant, copied from a highly discredited US insurance company, and demonstrating that their profits are much more important than the welfare of our people.

The most recent Work &Pensions select committee report, chaired by Anne Begg MP who is herself confined to a wheelchair, identified atrocities that had been on-going since Atos assessments had been introduced to our country.(7) The fact that this DWP funded corporate giant felt it reasonable to daily over book all appointments by 20%, so that failure to arrive didn't interrupt their daily through put, meant that chronically sick and disabled people - having made often Herculean efforts to travel to attend the assessment - were then turned away and told to attend another day was ever permitted is cause for concern. It took a disabled Chair of the W&P Select Committee to expose this nightmare and to insist that it was changed, whilst victims of this imposed tyranny can still take up to 135 'phone calls to Atos to re-arrange assessment appointments cancelled by the company. Atos are paid per assessment, hence another example of profits before people as the sick and disabled population live in fear of this unstoppable government funded medical tyranny.(7)

As of January this year there was an estimated 500,000 chronically sick and disabled people who had been wrongly denied incapacity benefit and, by now, the figures are estimated to be in excess of one million people.(8) To remove this embarrassment, the government introduced a replacement benefit entitled the Employment and Support Allowance, limited to an income for only 12 months.

The identified atrocities committed in the US by the government advisers Unum Insurance, formerly known as Unum Provident Insurance, are well documented and freely reported in the US but avoided by the UK national press as the nationals won't risk identifying this corporate insurance giant, identified as the 2nd worst insurance company in America, for fear of litigation.(4) A detailed report published in the Physician's News, an American publication, now refers.(9)

As for removing long-term disabled people from disability benefits to encourage employment, a detailed report by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, at Essex University, makes interesting reading and invites important questions.(10) As it is a 55 page report, I now refer to the website address: www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2011-03.pdf (10)

As the Welfare Reform Bill moves to Committee in the House of Lords, and is not debated in the public chamber, I trust the enclosed information is considered to be helpful and, should you wish any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. This cataclysmic introduction of profound welfare reforms, with a total lack of any identity of the dire consequences for many for whom appeals and protests are beyond them, is identified as government funded medical tyranny.

The fact that objections against any Atos Healthcare doctor will be resisted, and the victims of this fatally flawed assessment system are required to complain direct to the General Medical Council(GMC) has placed the GMC in an impossible situation, and they now resist investigating any complaint about medical staff in the employ of Atos Healthcare unless the victim has already been through Appeal and had the original assessment overturned. So now the DWP have compromised the GMC with the growing numbers of victims obliged to wait up to 10 months for an appeal, having first had their lifeline of benefits arbitrarily removed with catastrophic consequences. There have been suicides and this cannot continue to be ignored. These are the most vulnerable people in our society and this identified government funded medical tyranny must surely be seriously challenged.

All attempts to alert the Department of Justice to the many identified breaches in human rights, civil liberties and the breaches of the £100 million per annum DWP contract with Atos have failed to attract attention to date and I enclose a recent letter to Lord McNally as I attempt to raise awareness at the Department of Justice. (11)

Yours, most sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

Copied to: Baroness Jane Campbell, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson

(1) Letter to Professor Harrington - 10th Sept 2011
(2) Letter from the Minister for Veterans - 1st August 2011
(3) Letter to Stephen Barclay MP - 20th September 2011
(4) Welfare Reform - Redress for the Disabled - an independent report by Mrs S... - Sept 2011
(5) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories - an independent report by Mrs S... - August 2010
(6) Letter from the Leader of the House of Lords - the Rt Hon Lord Strathclyde - 14th September 2011
(7) The role of IB reassessments to help claimants into employment - W&P Committee 6th Report - 26th July 2011
(8) Up to 500,000 wrongly denied incapacity benefit, figures show - The Guardian - 3rd January 2011
(9) A warning about UNUM - Physicians News Digest
(10) Trends in the Employment of Disabled People in Britain - Richard Berthoud - University of Essex
(11) Letter to Lord McNally - Minister of State for Justice
  

Date: 7th October 2011

Dear Baroness Hollis

Ref: Welfare Reform Grand Committee contribution

Please excuse this unexpected contact as I wish to offer my warmest congratulations as to your memorable contribution to the debate this afternoon, yet I must apologise as this email is now quite lengthy.

As acknowledged by the noble Lords, your devestating critique regarding the council tax benefit proposals was memorable and brings me to the reason for my personal contact, which is that never before have the most vulnerable people in our society felt under such threat from their own government, and I write as a retired healthcare professional, a female war pensioner and, more recently, a disability activist and researcher. I refer you to my detailed recent letter to Baroness Meacher, now attached, together with attached detailed research evidence.

The council tax benefit suggestions are classic examples of proposals by civil servants with potentially devastating impact yet a total lack of knowledge, or any aparent concern, for the possible cataclismic consequences which will impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society and, certainly, the poorest.

As to WCA, I confess this thinly veiled pre-occupation by the Minister that anyone on disability benefits is really a fraud, and capable of work, whilst claiming concern for those of us too ill to work is mesmerising and more than a little offensive. I feel quite sure that the Minister believes that the only disabled people really incapable of work are in a persistent vegetative state, with no mention or acknowledgement of profound variable conditions, and the extremes of daily excesses of pain, within the Bill.

Unless and until any medical assessment will acknowledge the input from family doctors is accepted, atrocities as identified by Baroness Campbell will continue and the disabled population will remain living in fear and consumed with anxiety.

When those of us too sick or disabled to work must still subject ourselves to a totally bogus and discredited contractor, Atos Healthcare, with the inevitable and totally unnecessary distress that that causes, this is utterly unacceptable and the noble Baroness Campbell gave a very compelling example of the atrocities of this system and you will know of many more from your mail bag.

I am not privy as to why this totally unnecessary American idea was brought into the UK welfare system, apart from to enforce the suggestion that our family doctors and consultants cannot be trusted, but the system used by Atos Healthcare is identical to the second most discredited insurance system in America, was copied from them, and was designed to resist insurance claims. Detailed evidence is available in the attached reports. with the American insurance company acting as 'advisers' to the Government since introduced by Prof Mansel Aylward in 1994.

There is no suggestion that SOME long-term disabled people will not benefit from the opportunity to enjoy paid employment for new occupations, yet the realities are being totally ignored. How many more reports must be written to demonstrate that, in the present circumstances, employers will not offer themselves willing to introduce the necessary changes, and safety measures needed within the work environment, to make it suitable for chronically disabled people? So, in fact, all that will happen is that income of most disabled people will be reduced from IB to JSA.

The Minister appears to have no comprehension that many disabilities are as a result of serious illness and are, in fact, permanent which is why DLA payments were awarded 'for life' given that the diagnosis and disability was permanent and 'for life'. This simple fact doesn't appear to compute at the DWP. This is why we now have the absurd introduction of annual reassessments for DLA. What a staggering total waste of limited resources and an unnecessary presure on all disabled victims of this gvt funded medical tyranny.

Of course, one wonders what the Minister thinks the long term disabled do all day whilst ignoring the countless hours of voluntary work engaged, when able, by the profoundly sick and disabled population of this nation because we still need to find a quality of life, often met by voluntary activity. I do not have any out of work disability benefits, so this isn't speaking from my experience, but I do know the great value, self esteem and quality of life enjoyed by voluntary work in the community in years gone by.

Where is it stated that significant numbers, by reason of their identified profound permanent and extreme difficulties, should be totally excused from any assessment whatsoever?? Where is the genuine concern and real comprehension?

We can't find a miraculous cure, our conditions will never improve, and forcing an annual assessment is medically unnecessary, administratively incompetent and financially a vast waste of limited resources. So why do it?

All of us who have extremes of identified disability, that's totally incurable and cannot possibly improve, should not have DLA threatened, not least because there is no evidence that anything is wrong with the present system! All evidence has identified that bogus claims were no more than 0.5% with 1.5% admin errors. Indeed, DLA is the 'safest' DWP benefit of them all, so why change it? So, if the DWP staff would improve administration, the present DLA does not need to be altered or changed at all.

If the name of the game is claimed to reduce costs, why is the Minister insisting on wasting £billions on totally unnecessary changes other than to fund yet more civil servants? The total waste of money by the DWP persuing endless unnecessary changes could fund the NHS. The removal of DLA from the disabled will remove their Motability cars, prevent them going to work and increase disabled unemployment and these concerns are all over the Internet identified on the many disability support groups.

Once again the DWP are suggesting changes that adversely impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people without any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of the consequences. Why is this allowed apart fropm a short term ambition of a reduction in costs that will back fire as the numbers seeking additional help will go into orbit and this gvt imposed distress will impact adversly on the overstretched NHS.

Given the detailed sinister contents of the Bill, it does challenge credibility that Lord Freud claimed concern at 2nd reading at noble members' identity that sick and disabled people are terrified, whilst demonstrating that he has no comprehension as to why.

The noble Baronesses Campbell and Wilkins spoke in great detail as to the shocking realities of using a private contractor to assess the most chronically sick and disabled people in the country, and the expected increases in disability poverty by the proposals of the Universal Credit, and other noble Lords offered many other concerns regarding the planned new benefit structure. It appeared to fall on deaf ears.

As a retired healthcare professional it beggars belief that any medical 'assessment' system does so with a total and complete disregard as to the diagnosis, whilst using lay staff with no comprehension of medical terminology to make life changing decisions. Hence this nightmare of an assessment system persecuting very ill people required to travel to assessments when within weeks of end of life. It's a national disgrace that we now terrorise our most sick and disabled people, as copied from the US, and we already have disabled people living on the streets as they don't have the resources to fund their homes whilst waiting 10 months for an appeal to be heard to reinstate Incapacity Benefit, removed by a bogus and discredited so called assessment system. This is the reality of this nightmare and this is UK 2011. Why are we copying the US?

What, as a financier, may make perfect sense when using a spreadsheet and a calculator is a long way away from the things that are much more important such as care, concern, compassion and the one thing that's surely missing from the DWP which is medical knowledge.

As a disabled, female war pensioner, and retired healthcare professional, I undertook detailed and in depth research incentivised by a shocking personal experience with a staff member from Atos Healthcare when at my home. Time has moved on and my detailed reports have been well circulated and welcomed by frontline charities. The Government persistently ignore all their reports.

The WCA is medical tyranny, imposed by the DWP using a totally unaccountable private contractor and guided by the Minister for Welfare Reform, a former Vice President of a Swiss banking conglomerate, and with a confirmed total lack of knowledge, experience or concern for anyone too ill to work, other than the fact they cost the nation a lot of money.

This American system of welfare funding for sickness and disability should be expelled from the UK. This American system is a large part of the Universal Credit now being considered by noble members.

In your own words Baroness Hollis, this is indecent.

Thank you for your time when reading this and I hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional

To:      veterans.help@spva.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    10 October 2011 21:38
Subject: Cold Weather Payment

War Pensioners on lower percentage pensions will still be in receipt of Incapacity Benefit and probably DLA.

All may well change if forced to submit to a discredited assessment by a private contractor, Atos Healthcare, but that's another matter.

Since my War Pension was increased to 70%, my Incapacity Benefit and DLA mobility payments were replaced with an increase in War Pension.

Had I still been in receipt of Incap Benefit I would, I'm told, be permitted to claim a cold weather payment to contribute towards winter heating costs.

Can you please advise if those of us with more severe and profound disabilities, in receipt of a higher War Pension and DLA for care at the highest rate, still claim a cold weather payment?

If it is confirmed that very disabled War Pensioners should be entitled to this valuable contribution to what will be high winter fuel costs, please advise how this can be obtained given that, as a disabled veteran, my circumstances are not identified on the application forms.

DWP website fails to recognise the needs of seriously disabled War Pensioners for these claims.

Sincerely

Mrs S..., Disabled veteran (WRAF), Retired healthcare professional