Tag: psychosocial model

Tories propose nudge, big business AI initiative and ‘personal responsibility’ in place of adequate health care funding

Health spending by govt

A breakdown of spending on health care under each government up to 2016. Under the Major government, we saw a post code lottery of health care provision and patients were left for hours on end in hospital corridors. It’s a grim consideration that the Major government spent rather more on health care than the Conservatives in office since 2010.

Earlier this year, the prime minister was warned that patients being treated within the National Health Service are dying prematurely in hospital corridors, in a letter from A&E chiefs outlining “very serious concerns” about patient safety. 

Sixty-eight senior doctors in charge of some of the busiest accident and emergency departments in England and Wales said safety compromises are becoming “intolerable”. 

The letter includes accounts from frontline A&E doctors, one of whom warned 120 patients a day were being treated in corridors because of a lack of space on wards.

The letter said: “The fact remains that the NHS is severely and chronically underfunded. We have insufficient hospital and community beds and staff of all disciplines especially at the front door to cope with our ageing population’s health needs.”

Other issues raised in the letter, first reported in the Health Service Journal, include patients waiting up to 12 hours for a bed after doctors had decided to admit them, with queues of 50 patients waiting in one emergency department. May said that the cancellation of 55,000 appointments  was “part of the plan” for the NHS last winter, but said of her government’s response “nothing is perfect”.

The National Health Service (NHS) faces significant financial problems in many different areas. It is succeeding in treating more patients than in the past, but this rise in public need for health care, and rising costs coupled with very tight budgets, are translating into widespread pressures on the capacity of staff and managers to keep up with past performance and the standards the service sets itself.” 

Lengthening queues for treatment are happening despite the NHS treating more patients. In England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the number of episodes of care provided in NHS hospitals has been rising. In England, for example, the number of episodes of care overseen by a hospital consultant has risen 11.4% between 2010/11 and 2015/16. It is just that the rise in the treatment provided is not keeping pace with the even faster rise in the number of people coming forward.

At the same time, EnglandScotland and Wales have all started in different ways to look at reducing the provision of treatments that may be deemed of ‘less benefit’ to patients. That means that some people who would have had treatment on the NHS before may not in future. 

This decade health services have seen some of the lowest spending increases in their history. In England, real annual increases are only around 1% a year.

Real terms spending has also been roughly flat per person since 2010 in WalesScotland and Northern Ireland.

This compares to an average increase of nearly 4% over the history of the NHS reflecting the fact that, as the OBR has found, an aging population, new technology and rising wealth all tend to increase health spending in a country.

Matt Hancock, the demedicalisation of illness and the neoliberal psychosocial model

Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, has called on patients to have greater responsibility for their own health in the launch of new a policy paper entitled Prevention is better than cure which outlines a vision for a “new 21st-century focus on prevention”.

He says he wants to “radically change the focus of health and social care onto prevention”. 

Last month I wrote an article that pre-empted Hancock’s policy paper, published yesterday. I wrote critically about a number of his proposals in Government plans to use your phone and online data to police your lifestyle and predict ‘threats’ to your health.

Hancock has called for an increase in ‘social prescribing’ – refering patients to classes and community groups – in a bid to “shift the balance” away from GPs ‘automatically prescribing drugs for many illnesses.’  socialprescribing

He said in September“The evidence increasingly shows that activities like social clubs, art, ballroom dancing and gardening can be more effective than medicines for some people and I want to see an increase in that sort of social prescribing.” 

In practice, social prescribing means that GPs, nurses and other healthcare practitioners work with patients to identify non-medical opportunities or interventions that will help, improving support and the wider social aspects of their lives. The services that patients can choose from include everything from debt counselling, support groups, allotments and walking clubs, to community cooking classes and one-to-one coaching.

Both evidence and commons sense suggests that social prescribing may be particularly appropriate and beneficial for isolated, marginalised groups. It is a needs-led community provision that supports and enhances psychosocial health and wellbeing. However, Hancock seems to think it may be used as a substitute for medicine. 

The psychosocial approach has already been used to cut the budget for disability welfare support, with some tragic consequences. Now, the same approach in the form of social prescriptions is being proposed to cut the NHS bill. The University of York has already produced research to show that there is little good quality evidence that social prescribing is cost-effective

The Conservative government has made a link between social prescriptions, cost-cutting and (as I deeply suspected) as a mechanism of extending behavioural modification (euphemistically called “nudgingby the government’s team of behavioural economists and decision-making “experts”).

Nesta, who now partly own the government’s Behavioural Insights Team (the Nudge Unit) are of course at the forefront of promoting social prescriptions among medical professionals, firmly linking what is very good idea with very anti-democratic Conservative notions of behaviour change, citizen responsibility and small-state ideology. So, it’s no longer just about helping people to access a wider range of community-based services and support, social prescribing has also places strong emphasis on “encouraging patients to think about how they can take better care of themselves.” 

Nesta may have a whooping ‘cognitive bias’ here. A ‘perverse incentive’. It’s called the ‘profit’ incentive.

The same (bio)psychosocial model has been used to disingenuously trivialise and euphemise serious physical illnesses, implying either a psychosomatic basis or reducing symptoms to nothing more than a presentation of malingering tactics. This ploy has been exploited by medical insurance companies (infamously by Unum Provident in the USA) and government welfare departments keen to limit or deny access to medical, social care and social security payments, and to manufacture ideologically determined outcomes that are not at all in the best interests of patients, invalidating diagnoses, people’s experience and accounts, and the existence of serious medical conditions

Unum was involved in advising the government on making the devastating cuts to disabled people’s support in the UK’s controversial Welfare Reform Bill.

Hancock said in his speech at the International Association of National Public Health Institutes: “Prevention is also about ensuring people take greater responsibility for managing their own health.

“It’s about people choosing to look after themselves better, staying active and stopping smoking. Making better choices by limiting alcohol, sugar, salt and fat.”

Hancock claims it is not about “patronising” patients, “It’s about helping them make better choices, giving them all the support we can, because we know taking the tough decisions is never easy.”

“In the UK, we are spending £97bn of public money on treating disease and only £8bn preventing it across the UK”.

“You don’t have to be an economist to see those numbers don’t stack up.”

public spending

No, the numbers don’t stack up. Approximately 14 billion is spent by the Department of Health on things like public health initiatives (which aim to improve people’s health so they don’t need to use the NHS as often), education, training, and infrastructure (such as IT and building new hospitals). 

The Conservatives said in their 2015 election manifesto they would provide £8 billion in government, and expect another other £22 billion in savings from the NHS. The Nuffield Trust said this still left unanswered questions on funding:

“£8bn is the bare minimum to maintain existing standards of care for a growing and ageing population …

“improving productivity on this scale [£22 billion] would be unprecedented”

The Conservative government followed through on the commitment and then started claiming it was giving £10 billion, providing the NHS what it asked for, and more.

In their 2017 election manifesto, the Conservatives said they would increase NHS spending by at least £8 billion in real terms over the next five years, and increase funding per head of the population for the duration of the parliament.

Last year the think tanks said there would be a £4 billion gap in health spending in 2018/19 alone, but the £1.9 billion provided by the government at the end of last year meant that “around half of the minimum gap we calculated has been filled.”

They said even based on the government’s current spending plans there is likely to be a spending gap of over £20 billion by 2022/23. 

Approximately 44 % of NHS trusts—which provide secondary care to patients who’ve been referred there by a GP—were in the red in 2017/18. The figure was 65% just among acute hospital trusts—which make up the bulk of NHS trusts across England.

Collectively they finished 2017/18 with a deficit of around £960 million.

In this context, social prescriptions are used to maintain the status quo, and are likely to be part of a broader process of responsibility ascription – based on the traditional Conservative maxim of self-help, which is used to prop up fiscal discipline and public funding cuts, the extensive privatisation of public services, defense of private property and privilege, and of course, the free market. The irony of the New Right, neoliberal, paternalistic libertarianism is that the associated policies are not remotely libertarian. They are strongly authoritarian. It’s a government that doesn’t respond to public needs, but rather, it’s one that pre-determines public interests to fit within an ideological framework.

Theresa May has pledged millions of pounds to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to “improve early diagnosis of cancer and chronic disease.” In a speech delivered earlier this year, May also called for the industry and charities to “join the NHS in creating algorithms that can predict a patient’s care requirements based on their medical records and lifestyle information.” 

The government believes that early intervention would provide “less invasive, more affordable and more successful care than late intervention,” which they claim “often fails.”  

While the government has assumed that the unmatched size of the NHS’s collection of data makes it ideal for implementing AI, many are concerned about data privacy.

Importantly, May’s proposal would (once again) allow commercial firms to access NHS data for profit.

In April 2018, a £1bn AI sector deal between UK Government and industry was announced, including £300million towards AI research. AI is lauded as having the potential to help address important health challenges, such as meeting the care needs of an ageing population. 

Major technology companies – including Google, Microsoft, and IBM – are investing in the development of AI for healthcare and research. The number of AI start-up companies has also been steadily increasing. There are several UK based companies, some of which have been set up in collaboration with UK universities and hospitals.

Partnerships have already been formed between NHS providers and AI developers such as IBM, DeepMind, Babylon Health and Ultromics. Such partnerships have attracted controversy, and wider concerns about AI have been the focus of several inquiries and initiatives within industry, and medical and policy communities. 

Last year, Sir John Bell, a professor of medicine at Oxford university, led government-commissioned review. He said that NHS patient records are uniquely suited for driving the development of powerful algorithms that could “transform healthcare” and seed an “entirely new industry” in profitable AI-based diagnostics. 

Bell describes the recent controversy surrounding the Royal Free hospital in London granting Google DeepMind access to 1.6m patient records as the “canary in the coalmine”.

“I heard that story and thought ‘Hang on a minute, who’s going to profit from that?’” he said. 

Bell gave the hypothetical example of using an anonymised data for chest radiographs to develop an algorithm that eliminated the need for chest x-rays from the ‘analytical pathway’.

“That’s worth a fortune,” he said. “All the value is in the data and the data is owned by the UK taxpayer. There has to be really serious thought about protecting those interests as we go forward.”

However, Bell highlighted a “very urgent” need to review how private companies are given access to NHS data and the ownership of algorithms developed using these records.

Hancock, the recently appointed health secretary, is now planning a “radical” and highly invasive system of “predictive prevention”, in which algorithms will use detailed data on citizens to send targeted “healthy living messages” to those flagged as having “propensities to health problems”, such as taking up smoking or becoming obese. 

People’s medical records will be combined with social and smartphone data to predict who will pick up bad habits and stop them getting ill, under radical government proposals. Of course this betrays a fundamnetal assumption of the government: that illness arises because of  bad “lifestyle choices.” 

In the policy paper released yesterday, Hancock says “Prevention means stopping problems from arising in the first place; focusing on keeping people healthy, not just treating them when they become ill. And if they do, it means supporting them to manage their health earlier and more effectively. 

This means giving people the knowledge, skills and confidence to take full control of their lives and their health and social care, and making healthy choices as easy as possible.” 

And: “Last year, over 20 million people used the NHS website. Over the next ten years, digital services will become even more widespread, and the first point of contact for many. The management of health will move out of clinical settings, and into the hands of people. Devices and applications will provide guidance and support around the clock.”

Hancock also said that Public Health England will look at “harnessing digital technology” as a form of “predictive prevention”, potentially leading to targeted health advice for people based on their their location and lifestyle. 

His focus is on “improving health, reducing demand for public services and supporting economic growth.

And: “Predictive prevention will transform public health by harnessing digital technology and personal data – appropriately safeguarded – to prevent people becoming patients. The availability of public data, combined with the existing understanding of wider determinants of health, means we can use digital tools to better identify risks and then help the behaviours of people most in need – before they become patients. 

“Historically, public health has dealt with populations as a whole – a one-size-fits-all approach. The power of predictive prevention comes from enabling people to look at their health in the context of their own life, their own circumstances, and their own behaviour. “

“This means moving beyond a simply clinical view of a body system or disease. It means envisioning a world where everyone can understand their own risks, both in their genetic make-up and from their personal behaviour. We will be able to empower people to make positive changes – and not always in ways we have traditionally thought about.”

Whenever the Conservatives use words like ’empower’, ‘help’ or ‘support’, I worry, because the ideological context of neoliberalism changes the political meaning of these Orwellian Conservative signpost words. Similarly, when Conservatives use the word ‘sustainability’, it is invariably with a view to making catastrophic funding cuts to social safety net provision and wider public services. 

Hancock says more than once: “The ambition is to prevent people becoming patients.”

Inevitably, he came to : “We want to ensure better integration between health and employment support services to help people with health conditions to enter and stay in work. This means ensuring people receive work-related advice and support within the NHS as part of making work a health outcome; on the basis that good work is good for health.” The basis is unverified.

The government conducted a survey in 2011 that showed if people believed that work is good for them, they are less likely to take time off. There is no evidence that demonstrates work is good for health. There is evidence that suggests people who are well enough to work generally do. It is not possible to ‘make’ work ‘a health outcome’. People are either healthy enough to work or they are not. The fact that healthier people work on the whole does not make work ‘good’ for people’s health. Poverty is historically linked with poor health. In work poverty has risen over the last decade. Having a job is no guarantee of escaping poverty or ill health. 

Job coaches are already asking GPs to refer patients to them, and have even suggested that GPs should make sick notes conditional on patients making an appointment with a work coach. 

Hancock’s proposals hint at a plan to extend conditionality in health care. 

Helen Donovan, Professional Lead for Public Health at the Royal College of Nursing, said: “We welcome the fact that the Health Secretary is making prevention a priority, and clearly recognises that a focus on public health will keep people healthier for longer and save the NHS money and resources in the long run.

“But Matt Hancock must realise his plans will start at a disadvantage as local authorities struggle with planned cuts to public health budgets of almost four per cent per year until 2021. While it’s clear he sees that prevention isn’t an optional extra, we need to see properly funded, accountable services delivered by a fully staffed nursing workforce backed by adequate resources. Disadvantaged areas emerge worse off without these vital services with life expectancy and the poorest bear the brunt of underinvestment in public health.”

Jonathan Ashworth MP, Labour’s Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, said: “The Tories have imposed swingeing cuts to public health services, slashing vital prevention support such as smoking cessation services, sexual health services, substance misuse services and obesity help.

“In local communities, years of cuts and failed privatisation have resulted in health visitor and school nurse numbers falling, whilst children are losing out on the key early years health interventions they need.

“Many of the aims announced today are laudable but the reality is currently a further £1bn worth of cuts to health services including public health are set to be imposed by this Government next year.”

He added that unless the cuts were reversed, the green paper (planned for next year) would ”be dismissed as a litany of hollow promises”.

Simon Capewell, a professor of public health and policy at Liverpool University, said the minister was right to emphasise the need for effective prevention of epidemics such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and dementia.

But he added: “We must recognise the huge power of our lived environment, and avoid naively just focusing on ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘individual choices’. People do not ‘choose’ obesity or diabetes or cancer. They have just been overwhelmed by a toxic environment.”

The big drop in the last decade in the number of  UK citizens who smoke showed that firm, consistent government action was the best way to boost public health, Capewell said.

He added: “Mr Hancock can celebrate previous health successes with tobacco control. That success was built not on victim blaming, but on strong tax and regulation policies to reduce the ‘three As’ of tobacco affordability, availability and acceptability.”

Ministers need to take similarly tough action now against “the production of the commodities which harm people’s ill health, including junk food, cheap booze and fixed-odds betting terminals,” he said.

Hancock has of course denied that the government’s austerity programme had an impact on public health. In an interview for the BBC’s Today programme Hancock said: “The biggest impact on your health from the economy is whether or not you have got a job, and there are record numbers of jobs in this country.”

This of course is utter rubbish. If Hancock’s magical thinking was true, health in the UK would have dramatically improved over the last few years in line with ‘record employment levels’. But it hasn’t. The Conservatives are a party that prefers dogma over evidence, ideology over public services and the pseudopsychology of nudge over policies that meet public needs. 

Several health organisations have highlighted that local councils in England have had to cut their public health budgets in recent years, and will do so again next year, because Hancock’s department of health and social care has reduced their grants to divert more money to frontline NHS services. Many local councils have delivered preventative health programmes, but are now finding it increasingly difficult to deliver the statutory services. 

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, heavily criticised Hancock’s remarks. “From telling people to stand up in meetings to now lecturing people about their habits, while cutting £1bn from health services, isn’t a serious plan for improving the health of the nation,” he said.

public spending

Over the weekend Theresa May said the Conservatives “are now the natural party of the NHS” and said the Government was putting the public health system, created 70 years ago, on a path to “prosper for another 70 years and more”. That is most certainly an empirically unverified statement. 

It’s utter rubbish.

Matt Hancock Health secretary at his office

Update
Related  

Demedicalising illness and deprofessionalising healthcare: Rogue company Unum’s profiteering hand in the government’s work, health and disability green paper

GPs told to consider making fit notes conditional on patients having appointment with work coach

Government plans to use your phone and online data to police your lifestyle and predict ‘threats’ to your health

Cash for Care: nudging doctors to ration healthcare provision

Rationing and resource gatekeeping in the NHS is the consequence of privatisation

 


My work is unfunded and I don’t make any money from it. This is a pay as you like site. If you wish you can support me by making a one-off donation or a monthly contribution. This will help me continue to research and write independent, insightful and informative articles, and to continue to support others.

DonatenowButton

Rogue company Unum’s profiteering hand in the government’s work, health and disability green paper

aaeaaqaaaaaaaamkaaaajgq4nzqyyjexltu3ngmtndk3zi1hmjgyltziytjkmjdhyzjmnw

I wrote an extensive critique of the recent government green paper on work, health and disability. I mentioned that a government advisor, who is a specialist in labour economics and econometrics, has proposed scrapping all Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) sickness and disability benefits.

Matthew Oakley, a senior researcher at the Social Market Foundation, recently published a report entitled Closing the gap: creating a framework for tackling the disability employment gap in the UK, in which he proposes abolishing the ESA Support Group.

I also said: “Oakely also suggests considering a “role that a form of privately run social insurance could play in both increasing benefit generosity and improving the support that individuals get to manage their conditions and move back to work.” 

And: “I’m sure the private company Unum (formerly UnumProvident) would jump at the opportunity. Steeped in controversy, with a wake of scandals that entailed the notorious company systematically denying people their disabilty insurance, in 2004, Unum entered into a regulatory settlement agreement (RSA) with insurance regulators in over 40 US states.

The settlement related to Unum’s “mishandling” of disability claims and required the company “to make significant changes in corporate governance, implement revisions to claim procedures and provide for a full re-examination of both reassessed claims and disability insurance claim decisions.”

The company is the top disability insurer in both the United States and United Kingdom. In the US, it has been regarded as one of the two most unscrupulous insurance companies. The rogue company was also accused of cheating thousands of people out of welfare payments in the US. By coincidence, the company has been involved in the design of the UK government’s controversial 2012 Welfare Reform Bill, advising the government on how to cut spending, particularly on disability support. What could possibly go right?

Of course the vulture capitalist company Unum continues to “mishandle” claims both in the US, in violation of the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and here in the UK, denying people incapacity benefit, under employer’s group income protection policy (GIP).

The Reform think tank has also recently proposed scrapping what is left of the disability social security system, in their report Working welfare: a radically new approach to sickness and disability benefits, and has called for the government to set a single rate for all out-of-work benefits and to reform the way sick and disabled people are assessed.  

The members of the neoliberal think tank propose that the government should cut the weekly support paid to 1.3 million sick and disabled people in the ESA Support Group from £131 to £73. This is the same amount that people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance receive. However, those people placed in the Support Group after assessment have been deemed by the state as unlikely to be able to work again in the foreseeable future. It would therefore be very difficult to justify this proposed cut, given the additional needs that disabled people have, which is historically recognised, and empirically verified by research.

Yet the authors of the report doggedly insist that having a higher rate of weekly benefit for extremely sick and disabled people encourages them “to stay on sickness benefits rather than move into work.” However, people on sickness benefits don’t move into work because they are too sick to work. Their own doctors and the state (via the work capability assessment) have already established that. Forcing them to work is outrageously tyrannical.

The report recommended savings which result from removing the disability-related additions to the standard allowance should be reinvested in support services and extra costs benefits – Personal Independence Payment (PIP). However the government have ensured that eligibility for that support is rapidly contracting, with the ever-shrinking political and economic re-interpretation of medically defined sickness and disability categories and a significant reduction in what the government deem to be a legitimate exemption from being “incentivised” into work.

Policy change can often be explained by reference to changes in background ideas about the state, society and the individual, held and promoted by influential individuals, groups, political parties and … multinational companies.  

It turns out that you can predict such a lot by simply watching the way the wind blows.

The crib sheet  

Theresa May’s new director of policy, John Godfrey, is a keen advocate of what, in his last job, at financial services giant Legal and General, he called “Beveridge 2.0”: using technology to introduce new forms of “social insurance”.

Godfrey told a campaigning group, the Financial Inclusion Commission last year that the systems used to deliver “auto-enrolment”, the scheme that ensures all low-income workers have a pension, could also be used to help the public insure themselves against “unexpected events”.

“There is a clear lesson from auto-enrolment that if you have a plumbing network or an infrastructure that works, that auto-enrolment infrastructure could be used for other things which would encourage financial inclusion: things like, for example, life cover, income protection and effective and very genuine personal contributory benefits for things like unemployment and sickness,” he said. 

“They can be delivered at good value if there is mass participation through either soft compulsion or good behavioural economics.”

Note the context shift in the use of the term “inclusion”, which was originally deemed a democratic right, now it’s being discussed narrowly in terms of soft compulsion and individual responsibility. And an exchange of money. Subtext: inclusion is only for those who can pay for it. 

report published by the Adam Smith Institute as far back as 1995 – The Fortune Account also sets out proposals to replace “state welfare” with an insurance system “operated by financial institutions within the private sector”. 

Mo Stewart has spent eight years researching the toxic and all-pervasive influence of the US insurance giant Unum over successive UK governments, and how it led to the introduction of the “totally bogus” and non-medical work capability assessment (WCA), which she says was designed to make it very much more difficult for sick and disabled people to claim out-of-work disability and sickness benefits.

Stewart’s excellent bookCash Not Care: The Planned Demolition Of The UK Welfare State, was published in September. She states that the assessment was modeled on methods used by the controversial company Unum to deny protection to sick and disabled people in the US who had taken out income protection policies.

She goes on to say that the WCA was “designed to remove as many as possible from access to [employment and support allowance] on route to the demolition of the welfare state”, with out-of-work disability benefits to be replaced by insurance policies provided by private companies like Unum.

Stewart warns us that the UK is now close to adopting a US-style model.

She’s absolutely right.

Our public services are being privately auctionedThe multinational corporations are queuing up for the sale of the century in the UK.

The public are picking up the tab.

 Rogue and antisocial corporations are writing public policies

bdvo50o

Corporate lobbyists are primarily interested in a tactical investment. Whether facing down a threat to profits from a corporate tax raise, or pushing for market opportunities – such as government privatisations – lobbying has become simply another way of making a lot of money for a few people. Lobbyist messages are very carefully crafted and spun, especially in the media. The ultimate corporate goal is sheer self-interested profit-making, but this will always be dressed up to appear synonymous with the wider, national interest. At the moment, that means a collective chanting of the “economic growth”, supply side “productivity”, implied trickle down, “jobs” and “personal responsibility” neoliberal mantra.

Corporations buy their credibility and utilise seemingly independent people such as academics with a mutual interest to carry their message for them. Some think tanks – especially free-market advocates like Reform or leading neoliberal think  tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs – will also provide companies with a lobbying package: a media-friendly report, a Westminster event, meetings with politicians. The extensive Public Relations (PR) industry are paid to brand, market, engineer a following, build trust and credibility and generally sell the practice of managing the spread of information between an individual or an organisation (such as a business, government agency, the media) and the public.

PR is concerned with selling products, persons, governments and policies, corporations, and other institutions. In addition to marketing products, PR has been variously used to attract investments, influence legislation, raise companies’ public profiles, put a positive spin on policies, disasters, undermine citizens’ campaigns, gain public support for conducting warfare, and to change the public perception of repressive regimes.

You can see how the revolving door of mutually exclusive political and corporate favour operates: it just keeps on spinning.

63606308539839586285265400_revolving-door (1).jpg

Edelman Intelligence and Westbourne, for example, are engaged in rebuttal campaigns and multimedia astroturfing projects to protect corporate interests:

“Monitoring of opposition groups is common: one lobbyist from agency Edelman talks of the need for “360-degree monitoring” of the internet, complete with online “listening posts … so they can pick up the first warning signals” of activist activity. “The person making a lot of noise is probably not the influential one, you’ve got to find the influential one,” he says. Rebuttal campaigns are frequently employed: “exhausting, but crucial,” says Westbourne.” From The truth about lobbying: 10 ways big business controls government

Edelman Intelligence is the world’s largest PR company and have been quietly visiting my own WordPress site over this last year, the link shows they were referred to my site from their own social media monitoring command centre. I’ve contacted the company to ask why, but have yet to receive a response. I’m not a paying client so it’s highly unlikely that the visits are in connection with promoting my best interests. Paying clients include the likes of Rupert Murdoch. (See footnote).

Screen-shot-2012-05-24-at-4.45.55-PM.png

Unum’s long standing toxic influence on policy-making

In a recent press release, the delighted vulture capitalists at Unum say that they welcome the government’s recent Green Paper’s focus on Group Income Protection. The press release also says:

“Unum has welcomed the government’s recognition in a new Green Paper that “Group Income Protection policies have a much greater role to play in supporting employers” help people with health problems to stay in or return to work.

The proposals were set out in Improving Lives: the Work, Health and Disability Green Paper, launched by the Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health, yesterday, 31 October 2016. As part of its efforts to enable “more people with long term conditions to reap the benefits of work and improve their health”, the Paper includes a number of proposals to prevent people falling out of work for health reasons and to make employers feel more confident about supporting disabled employees. In particular, it includes a number of specific policy ideas to increase the number of British workers with Group Income Protection (GIP).

Through GIP, Unum has enabled thousands of people to return to work after long term sickness absences caused by mental health and musculoskeletal problems and other serious health conditions, including cancer and multiple sclerosis. Unum also provides training, support and advice to employers and line managers on how to look after employees with health problems and help them stay in or return to work.

To increase the number of workers who benefit from GIP coverage, Unum is calling on the government to consider a temporary tax break for employers that buy GIP for their staff. This would reduce the number of people who fall out of work for health reasons, protect the finances of those who are unable to work and boost the productivity of UK businesses.”

In my critical analysis of the work, health and disability green paper, I said: 

“And apparently qualified doctors, the public and our entire health and welfare systems have ingrained “wrong” ideas about sickness and disability, especially doctors, who the government feels should not be responsible for issuing the Conservatives recent Orwellian “fit notes” any more, since they haven’t “worked” as intended and made every single citizen economically productive from their sick beds.

So, a new “independent” assessment and some multinational private company will most likely very soon have a lucrative role to ensure the government get the “right” results.”

The medical specialists are to be replaced by another profiteering corporate giant who will enforce a political agenda in return for big bucks from the public purse. Health care specialists are seeing their roles being incrementally and systematically de-professionalised. That means more atrocious and highly irrational attempts from an increasingly authoritarian government at imposing an ideological “cure” – entailing the withdrawal of any support and imposing punitive “behavioural incentives” – on people with medical conditions and disabilities.

Doctors, who are clever enough to recognise, diagnose and treat illness, are suddenly deemed by this government to be not clever enough to judge if patients are fit for work. It seems that the Conservatives don’t like competent witnesses who may challenge their droning ideologically driven neoliberal psychobabbling.

The political de-professionalisation of medicine, medical science and specialisms (consider, for example, the implications of permitting job coaches to update patient medical files), the merging of health and employment services and the recent absurd declaration that work is a clinical “health” outcome, are all carefully calculated strategies that serve as an ideological prop and add to the justification rhetoric regarding the intentional political process of dismantling publicly funded state provision, and the subsequent stealthy privatisation of Social Security and the National Health Service. 

De-medicalising illness is also a part of that process:

“Behavioural approaches try to extinguish observed illness behaviour by withdrawal of negative reinforcements such as medication, sympathetic attention, rest, and release from duties, and to encourage healthy behaviour by positive reinforcement: ‘operant-conditioning’ using strong feedback on progress.” Gordon Waddell and Kim Burton in Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of common health problems. The Corporate Medical Group, Department for Work and Pensions, UK. 

Medication, rest, release from duties, sympathetic understanding – remedies to illness – are being redefined as “perverse incentives” for “sickness behaviours”, yet the symptoms of an illness necessarily precede the prescription of medication, the Orwellian (and political rather than medical) “fit note” and exemption from work duties. Notions of “rehabilitation” and medicine are being redefined as behaviour modification: here it is proposed that operant conditioning in the form of negative reinforcement, which the authors seem to have confused with punishment, will “cure” ill health.

This is the same kind of thinking that lies behind welfare sanctions, which are state punishments entailing the cruel removal of lifeline income for “non-compliance” in narrowly and rigidly defined “job seeking behaviours.” Sanctions are also described as a “behavioural incentive” to “help” and “encourage”people into work. People who are ill, it is proposed, should be sanctioned, too, which would entail having their lifeline basic health care removed.

Many qualitative accounts from first hand witnesses, extensive research and empirical evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that welfare sanctions make it less likely that people will find employment: taking essential support from people with very limited resources profoundly demotivates, distresses and harms people, rather than “incentivising” them to find work. (See also: Benefits sanctions: a policy based on zeal, not evidence and The Nudge Unit’s u-turn on benefit sanctions indicates the need for even more lucrative nudge interventions, say nudge theorists.)

The darker meaning of David Cameron’s comment about “ending a culture of entitlement” back in 2010 has become clearer. He wasn’t only talking about perceived attitudes and referencing erroneous, unverified and unfounded notions of “welfare dependency”: his party’s aim was and still is about reducing public expectations of a supportive and rights-based relationship with the publicly-funded state – one that has evolved from the post-war settlement to ensure that everyone in the UK can meet their basic human needs.

Poor and ill people cannot be simply punished (or “nudged”) out of being poor or ill. 

Sanctions are a callous, profoundly antidemocratic, dysfunctional and extremely regressive form of economic terrorism, founded entirely on traditional Conservative prejudices about poor people and rigid ideological assumptions. It is absolutely unacceptable that a government treats some people, including some of the UK’s most vulnerable citizens, in such horrifically cruel and dispensable way, in a very wealthy, so-called civilised, first-world liberal democracy.

Unum also have a longstanding reputation for trying to reduce physical illness to “subjective states” and “faulty behaviours”, too. (See also: evidence submitted to the the select health committee by Professor Malcolm Hooper and Subjective symptom disability claims: Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia and Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome for example).

Even public policies that are supposed to address fundamental human needs arising from sickness and disability are tainted by a neoliberal idée fixe. The leitmotif is a total corporacratic commodification of human needs and relationships; building hierarchies of human worth within the closed and entropic context of a competitive market place, where resources are “scarce” and people are being herded; where the only holding principle that operates is profit over human need.

“In defiance of the substantial biomedical evidence submitted to its Guideline Development Group (GDG), NICE is recommending an inappropriate and potentially dangerous behavioural modification regime as the only management strategy for those with ME/CFS. NICE’s recommended management regime is promoted by a group (mainly psychiatrists) who have undeclared but undeniable competing financial interests.” Malcolm Hooper

It’s mind over matter and quids in

Behavioural medicine was partly influenced by Talcott Parsons’ The Social System, 1951, and his work regarding the sick role, which he analysed in a framework of citizen’s roles, social obligations, reciprocities and behaviours within a wider capitalist society, with an analysis of rights and obligations during sick leave. From this perspective, the sick role is considered to be sanctioned deviancewhich disturbs the function of society. (It’s worth comparing that the government are currently focused on economic function and enhancing the supply side of the labour market.)

Behavioural medicine more generally arose from a view of illness and sick role behaviours as characteristics of individuals, and these concepts were imported from sociological and sociopsychological theories.

However, it should be pointed out that there is a distinction between the academic social science disciplines, which include critical perspectives of conflict and power, for example, and the recent technocratic “behavioural insights” approach to public policy, which is a monologue that doesn’t include critical analysis, and serves as prop for neoliberalism, conflating citizen’s needs and interests with narrow, politically defined economic outcomes.

We have a government that has regularly misused concepts from psychology and sociology, distorting them to fit a distinct framework of ideology, and justification narratives for draconian policies. Parsons’ work has generally been defined as sociological functionalism, and functionalism tends to embody very conservative ideas. From this perspective, sick people are not productive members of society; therefore this deviation from the norm must be policed. This, according to Parsons, is the role of the medical profession. More recently we have witnessed the rapid extension of this role to include extensive State policing of sick and disabled people.

It seems many of the psychosocial advocates have ignored the rise of chronic illnesses and the increasing pathologisation of everyday behaviours in health promotion. Parson’s sick role came to be seen as a negative referent (Shilling, 2002: 625) rather than as a useful interpretative tool. Parsons’ starting point is his understanding of illness as deviance. Illness is the breakdown of the general “capacity for the effective performance of valued tasks” (Parsons, 1964: 262). Losing this capacity disrupts “loyalty” to particular commitments in specific contexts such as the workplace.

Theories of the social construction of disability also provide an example of the cultural meaning of certain health conditions. The roots of this anti-essentialist approach are found in Stigma by Erving Goffman (1963), in which he highlights the social meaning physical impairment comes to acquire via social interactions. The social model of disability tends to conceptually distinguish impairment (the attribute) from disability (the social experience and meaning of impairment). Disability cannot be reduced to a mere biological problem located in an individual’s body  (Barnes, Mercer, and Shakespeare, 1999). Rather than a “personal tragedy” that should be fixed to conform to medically determined standards of “normality” (Zola, 1982), disability becomes politicised. The issues we then need to confront are about the obstacles that may limit the opportunities for individuals with impairments, and about how those social barriers may be removed.

From a social constructionist perspective, emphasis is placed on how certain illnesses come to have cultural meanings that are not reducible to or determined by biology, and these cultural meanings further burden the afflicted (as opposed to burdening “the tax payer” , the health services, those with profit seeking motives, or the state.)

So to clarify, it is wider society and governments that need a shift in disabling attitudes, perceptions and behaviours, not disabled people.

The insights that arose from the social construction of disability approach are embodied in policies, which include the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which included an employers’ duty to ensure reasonable adjustments/adaptations; the more recent Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides an important tool for disabled people to use to challenge discrimination, violations to their human rights and unacceptable treatment.

In contrast, Parsons invokes a social contract in which society’s “gift of life” is repaid by continued contributions and conformity to (apparently unchanging, non-progressive) social expectations. For Parsons, this is more than just a matter of symbolic interaction, it has far more concrete, material implications: “honour” (deserving) and “shame” (undeserving) which accompany conformity and deviance, have consequences for the allocation of resources, for notions of citizenship, civil rights and social status.

Parsons never managed to accommodate and reflect social change, suffering and distress, poverty, deprivation and conflict in his functionalist perspective. His view of citizens as oversocialised and subjugated in normative conformity was an essentially Conservative one. Furthermore, his systems theory was heavily positivistic, anti-voluntaristic and profoundly dehumanising. His mechanistic and unilinear evolutionary theory reads like an instruction manual for the capitalist state.

Parsons thought that social practices should be seen in terms of their function in maintaining order and social structure. You can see why his core ideas would appeal to Conservative neoliberals and rogue multinational companies. Conservatives have always been very attached to tautological explanations (insofar that they tend to present circular arguments. One question raised in this functional approach is how do we determine what is functional and what is not, and for whom each of these activities and institutions are functional. If there is no method to sort functional from non-functional aspects of society, the functional model is tautological – without any explanatory power to why any activity is regarded as “functional.” The causes are simply explained in terms of perceived effects, and conversely, the effects are explained in terms of perceived causes). 

Because of the highly gendered division of labour in the 1950s, the body in Parsons’ sick role is a male one, defined as controlled by a rational, purposive mind and oriented by it towards an income-generating performance. For Parsons, most illness could be considered to be psychosomatic.

The “mind over matter” dogma is not benign; there are billions of pounds and dollars at stake for the global insurance industry, which is set to profit massively to the detriment of sick and disabled people. The eulogised psychosocial approach is evident throughout the highly publicised UK PACE Trial on treatment regimes that entail Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and graded exercise. By curious coincidence, that trial was also significantly about de-medicalising illnesses. Another curious coincidence is that Mansel Aylward sat on the PACE Trial steering group. 

Here is further evidence that government policy is not founded on empirical evidence, but rather, it is often founded on deceitful contrivance. A Department for Work and Pensions research document published back in 2011 – Routes onto Employment and Support Allowance – said that if people believed that work was good for them, they were less likely to claim or stay on disability benefits.

It was decided that people should be “encouraged” to believe that work was “good” for health. There is no empirical basis for the belief, and the purpose of encouraging it is simply to cut the numbers of disabled people claiming ESA by “encouraging” them into work. Some people’s work is undoubtedly a source of wellbeing and provides a sense of purpose. That is not the same thing as being “good for health”. For a government to use data regarding opinion rather than empirical evidence to claim that work is “good” for health indicates a ruthless mercenary approach to fulfill their broader aim of dismantling social security and to uphold their ideological commitment to supply-side policy.

From the document: “The belief that work improves health also positively influenced work entry rates; as such, encouraging people in this belief may also play a role in promoting return to work.”

The aim of the research was to “examine the characteristics of ESA claimants and to explore their employment trajectories over a period of approximately 18 months in order to provide information about the flow of claimants onto and off ESA.”

The document also says: “Work entry rates were highest among claimants whose claim was closed or withdrawn suggesting that recovery from short-term health conditions is a key trigger to moving into employment among this group.”

“The highest employment entry rates were among people flowing onto ESA from non-manual occupations. In comparison, only nine per cent of people from non-work backgrounds who were allowed ESA had returned to work by the time of the follow-up survey. People least likely to have moved into employment were from non-work backgrounds with a fragmented longer-term work history. Avoiding long-term unemployment and inactivity, especially among younger age groups, should, therefore, be a policy priority. ” 

“Given the importance of health status in influencing a return to work, measures to facilitate access to treatment, and prevent deterioration in health and the development of secondary conditions are likely to improve return to work rates”

Rather than make a link between manual work, lack of reasonable adjustments in the work place and the impact this may have on longer term ill health, the government chose instead to promote the cost-cutting and unverified, irrational belief that work is a “health” outcome. Furthermore, the research does conclude that health status itself is the greatest determinant in whether or not people return to work. That means that those not in work are not recovered and have longer term health problems that tend not to get better.

Work does not “cure” ill health. To mislead people in such a way is not only atrocious political expediency, it’s actually downright dangerous.

As neoliberals, the Conservatives see the state as a means to reshape social institutions and social relationships based on the model of a competitive market place. This requires a highly invasive power and mechanisms of persuasion, manifested in an authoritarian turn. Public interests are conflated with narrow economic outcomes. Public behaviours are politically micromanaged. Social groups that don’t conform to ideologically defined economic outcomes are politically stigmatised and outgrouped.

Nudging, Unum and the behaviourist turn in medicine. 

The history of medicine and definitions of illness and disability are being re-written for the insurance industry, by neoliberal “small state” ideologues and anti-welfarist governments.

Formally instituted by Cameron in September 2010, the Behavioural Insights Team, (otherwise known as the Nudge Unit), which is a part of the Cabinet Office, is made up of people such as David Halpern, who co-authored the Cabinet Office report: Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy, which comes complete with a cover illustration of the human brain, with an accompanying psychobabble of decontextualised words such as “incentives”, “habit’, “priming” and “ego.” It’s all just a stock of  inane managementspeak. Neoliberal psychobabbling and strategies of psycho-complulsion.

The report addresses the needs of policy-makers.  Not the public. The behaviourist educational function made explicit through the Nudge Unit is now operating on many levels, including through policy programmes, forms of “expertise”, and through the State’s influence on citizens, the mass media, other cultural systems and at a subliminal level: it’s embedded in the very language that is being used in political narratives.

The increasing focus on social control and conformity in public policy design and governing has been dubbed “neuroliberalism”, reflecting something of a behaviourist turn. It draws on social marketing as a policy tool, in which principles from private marketing and advertising are applied to the definition and promotion of “good” behaviours. Deviance (“bad” behaviour) is defined politically through the intentional and systematic stigmatisation of already marginalised social groups, leading to the creation of folk devils and moral panic which is amplified and perpetuated by the media. 

Othering and outgrouping have become common political practices. 

This serves to desensitise the public to the circumstances of marginalised social groups and legitimises neoliberal “small state” policies, such as the systematic withdrawal of state support for those adversely affected by neoliberalism, and it also justifies inequality. By stigmatising the poorest citizens, a “default setting” is established regarding how the public ought to perceive and behave towards defined outgroups. 

Policies directed at the poorest and some of the most vulnerable citizens are being used to extend behaviour modification techniques, based on methodological behaviourism. This is a psychocratic approach to administration: the government are delivering public policies that have an expressed design and aim to act upon individuals, with an implicit set of instructions that inform citizens how they should be.  

Aversives and punishment protocols are being used on the public. Coercive and harshly conditional welfare policies are one example of this.

The origin of active welfare (the idea that the social security system should reflect that the habitually “idle poor” need coercing into work), founded on the idea that poor people are the cause of their own poverty because of their cognitive and behavioural flaws – they fail to take advantage of the opportunities “available” to them – lies with the US neoliberal right.

Charles Murray and Lawrence Mead clearly made an impact on the international policy debate in the 1980s, partly due to the legitimisation that they received from the support of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations for their central claims. They were particularly influential in the growth of work fare and a welfare system based on punishment and psycho-compulsion. Murray claimed the underclass of poor people avoid work because of the “overgenerous” nature of welfare benefits. Mead argued that a “culture of poverty” meant that workfare policies are required to “reintegrate” and “incentivise” the unemployed poor. 

In the UK, James Purnell, one of the work and pensions secretaries for New Labour, said: “For those who play by the rules, there is a world of opportunity. But for those who don’t, there will be clear consequences from their behaviour”.

He sounds rather like an authoritarian Victorian headmaster.

So what exactly are “the rules”, and who has made them?

Government policies are expressed political intentions regarding how our society is organised and governed. They have calculated social and economic aims and consequences. In democratic societies, citizens’ accounts of the impacts of policies ought to matter. 
 
However, in the UK, the way that policies are justified is being increasingly detached from their aims and consequences, partly because democratic processes and basic human rights are being disassembled or side-stepped, and partly because the government employs the widespread use of linguistic strategies: euphemisms, superficial glittering generalities and techniques of persuasion to intentionally divert us from aims and consequences of ideologically (rather than rationally) driven policies. Furthermore, policies have become increasingly detached from public interests and needs. 

Neoliberal anti-welfarism, amplified by a corporate media, has aimed at reconstruction of society’s “common sense” assumptions, values and beliefs. Class, disability and race narratives in particular, associated with traditional prejudices and categories from the right wing, have been used to nudge the UK to re-imagine citizenship, human rights and democratic inclusion as highly conditional.  

Illness is all in the mind: conforming to roles and academically constructed stereotypes

“Diagnosis elicits the belief the patient has a serious disease, leading to symptom focusing that becomes self-validating and self-reinforcing and that renders worse outcomes, a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if the label is a biomedical one like ME. Diagnosis leads to transgression into the sick role, the act of becoming a patient even if complaints do not call for it, the development of an illness identity and the experience of victimization”. Simon Wessely and Marcus S.J. Huibers: The act of diagnosis: pros and cons of labelling chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychological Medicine 2006: 36

In 1993, Mansel Aylward invited psychiatrist Simon Wessely to give a presentation on his biopsychosocial approach to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome before the then Minister for Social Security. Wessely claimed: “As regards benefits:- it is important to avoid anything that suggests that disability is permanent, progressive or unchanging. Benefits can often make patients worse.” 

Benefits can often make patients worse.” I think he meant the patient’s illness is made worse. Despite there being little empirical evidence for these claims, the Minister for Social Security was looking to cut spending, so self-styled “experts” were more useful to an expedient government than rigorous research. I think it would be true to say that without social security, many people who are disabled because of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) would experience MUCH worse symptoms, as indeed people with other chronic illnesses would, and some would undoubtedly die without lifeline support to enable them to meet their basic survival needs. 

ME action UK say that on  May 17, 1995, Wessely was one of  the main speakers at a Unum-supported symposium held in London entitled “Occupational Health Issue for Employers” (where ME was described as “the malingerers’ charter”) at which they advised employers how to deal with employees who were on long-term sickness absence with “CFS”.  Moreover, in UNUM’s “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Management Plan”, ME/CFS is described as “Neurosis with a new banner” and the same document states  “UNUM stands to lose millions if we do not move quickly to address this increasing problem”. 

Unum have been advising UK governments since at least 1994, when the  Conservative government hired John LoCascio, second vice-president of giant and scandalous US disability insurance company, Unum, to advise on reducing the numbers successfully claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB). He joined the “medical evaluation group”.

Another key figure in the group was Mansel Aylward. The group devised a stringent “all work test”. Approved doctors were trained in Unum’s approach to “claims management”. That’s basically  managing not to pay people what they are entitled to. The rise in IB claimants came to a halt. However, it did not reduce the rising numbers of claimants with mental health problems.

Supporters of the behaviourist “non-medical” model of disability and illness include Mansel Aylward, Dame Carol Black, Lord Freud and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (the chairman of the Unum customer advisory panel, whilst he was also Chair of the UK parliament’s work and pensions select committee).

Of course there is the lowest common denominator for highest possible private profits in operation in the US and UK. Some names keep recurring, like the proverbial bad penny for bad thoughts. The controversial PACE trial is just another small variation of the leitmotif. Recently an information tribunal rejected a university’s £200,000 attempt to prevent release of data from the controversial medical trial, that was the first to receive Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) funding.

The PACE trial mirrors Unum’s previous systematic and wholly non scientific de-medicalisation and subsequent trivialisation of serious illnesses such as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and Fibromyalgia in the US, and has led to the growth and standardisation of “behavioural” medical treatment regimes, such as cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), which is often used to reduce the use of pharmacological pain relief in a wide range of chronic illnesses, including connective tissue diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

The World Health Organisation classified these illnesses as physical diseases, now they are being reconstructed as “psychosocial” phenonena, with recovery supposedly being dependent on the sick person’s attitude and mindset, by greedy crony capitalists and ideologically expedient neoliberal “small state” anti-welfarist governments.

This current psychosocial approach to medical conditions is about addressing a perceived need for cognitive and behavioural change: it allegedly addresses patient’s “attitudes and perceptions” of their condition, their “coping mechanisms” or lack of them, and perceptions of pain and its “management”. None of this affects the underlying disease activity or the damage that disease processes cause to the body.  It’s speculative nonsense.

The trial assessed the value of “biopsychosocial” interventions at the same time as the DWP was using the biopsychosocial model of disability to help justify cuts to disability spending. 

The absurd consequences of permitting a vulture capitalist insurance multinational to write sickness and disability public policies

It’s an interesting observation that Mansel Aylward, who was a key architect of the last decade’s welfare “reforms”, had helped to secure funding for the PACE Trial and sat as an “observer” on the trial’s steering committee. The DWP co-funded the trial. The failure to release the results for the pre-specified analyses laid out in the PACE trial’s protocol is of concern as it had already been noted that there was a likely ideological bias of the trial’s three principal investigators.

All three investgators have invested in developing careers founded on the development of biopsychosocial interventions for CFS, and the two who had been part of the Chief Medical Officer’s CFS working group both resigned because the active biopsychosocial approaches of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) were not endorsed over “pacing” in the way that they had wanted. (See Chronic fatigue report delayed as row breaks out over content. The British Medical Journal, 2002, and Power-sharing, not a take-over, 2002.)

All three principal investigators also reported conflicts of interest involving the insurance industry. There has long been concern about private insurance companies influencing changes to undermine the UK welfare state, a system of social insurance that they currently compete against. (See Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial, 2011 and “In the Expectation of Recovery” MISLEADING MEDICAL RESEARCH AND WELFARE REFORM, George Faulkner, 2016).

“Back in 1995 a Unum report on CFS stated that they could “lose millions if we do not move quickly to address this increasing problem”. It was argued that CFS claims should be managed “more aggressively and in a proactive rather than a reactive fashion” while attempting to present CFS as “neurosis with a new banner”. Emphasising the importance of psychosocial factors and classing CFS as a mental health problem could bring immediate financial benefits to insurance companies when policies limit payouts for mental health problems.

“One of the PACE trial’s principal investigators gave a presentation on the results of the PACE trial to Swiss Re insurance. Swiss Re’s report of his talk detailed the potential use of mental health exclusions to cut payments, while a 2013 Swiss Re presentation on their approaches to mental health problems describes their use of specific exclusions for CFS and ME.

“During the Swiss Re presentation on PACE no mention seems to have been made of the fact that PACE found neither CBT nor GET were associated with improved employment outcomes, and instead Swiss Re’s claims managers continued to be encouraged to believe that promoting these active rehabilitative approaches would assist return to work. There has been concern about insurance companies pushing some patients with CFS to take part in CBT and GET against their wishes.

“A response to the paper which published the PACE trial’s data on employment outcomes was titled Coercive practices by insurance companies and others should stop following the publication of these results, but has yet to receive a response from the PACE team.” George Faulkner, 2016

From 1996 to April 2005 Mansel Aylward was chief medical adviser, medical director and chief scientist of the UK Department for Work and Pensions and chief medical adviser and head of profession at the veteran’s agency, Ministry of Defence. He was involved in the establishment of the new Work Capability Assessment. When he left the department, he headed the UnumProvident Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, at Cardiff University. (The centre has since been renamed and Unum claim they no longer provides any funding – no doubt because of the claims that academic integrity could be called into question by its influence.)

The Scientific and Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits by Gordon Waddell and Mansel Aylward, followed by the 2006 report: Is work good for your health and well-being by Gordon Waddell and Kim Burton, were both very influential reports that were commissioned by the DWP and so inclined towards ideologically biased outcomes from the start. Both reports were produced when Aylward and Waddell were sponsored by UnumProvident – Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research ( at Cardiff  University) – with funding of course from Unum Provident, from 2004-2009.

In January 2003, an influential book, Malingering and illness deception was published as a very large hymn crib sheet that was to inform political rhetoric, media justification narratives and the subsequent welfare “reforms.” It was also funded by the DWP, with telltale dogma and schematic contributions from Gordon Waddell, John LoCascio of UNUM Provident Insurance Company, and of course there is this telling acknowledgment:

The meeting which formed the basis for this book would not have been possible had it not been for the enthusiastic support of Professor Mansel Aylward and funding from the Department for Work and Pensions.” 

The book has political agenda-setting chapter sub-headings such as: Investigating benefit fraud and illness deception in the United Kingdom, Malingering, insurance medicine, and the medicalization of fraud and Wilful deception as illness behaviour. 

Unum insidiously built up credibility and influence in Britain. The company appointed Mansel Aylward as director of their Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, following his retirement from the DWP. The launch event was attended by Archie Kirkwood, who was appointed chair of the House of Commons select committee on work and pensions. Malcolm Wicks, minister of state in the DWP, gave a speech praising the “partnership between industry and the university.”

The whole aim of the centre was to transform the ideological paradigm of welfare from one based on a rights-based post- war collectivism to one increasingly enclosed by a responsibility-based individualism and so help develop the market for Unum’s products. In 2005, the centre produced The Scientific and Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits (TSO, 2005) written by Aylward and colleague Gordon Waddell. It provided the conceptual framework for the 2006 welfare reform bill.

Of course the more recent widespread criticism of “Atos” assessments in the UK has been beneficial to Unum as it undermines confidence in state provision of disability benefits. Such a profound loss of confidence makes it much easier to sell alternatives: private insurance. 

Its methodology is the same one that informs Unum’s approach. Is work good for your health and well-being by Gordon Waddell and Kim Burton was also a very influential report, both were also commissioned by the DWP and so inclined towards ideologically biased outcomes from the start. Just to be clear, both reports were produced when Aylward and Waddell were sponsored by UnumProvident – Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research (the Centre) at Cardiff  University, with funding by Unum Provident, from 2004-2009.

Among the spurious ideas used to justify cutting lifeline social security support is that disabled and ill people are not working because of an “internalisation of the sick or “patient” role as the dominant feature of their lives,” and that “work is good for health.” 

In a memorandum submitted to the House of Commons select committee on work and pensions, Unum define their method of working: “Our extended experience […] has shown us that the correct model to apply when helping people to return to work is a biopsychosocial one.”

The emphasis, however, is on the “psychosocial”. This shifts the focus from the medical conditions that cause disability and illness to the behaviours and perceptions of patients and ultimately, to neoliberal notions of personal responsibility and self-sufficient citizenship in a context of a night watchman, non-welfare state. 

Waddell and Aylward adopted the same arguments in their monograph. Disease is the only form of objective, medically diagnosable pathology. Sickness is a temporary phenomenon. Illness is a behaviour. Incapacity Benefit trends are a social phenomenon rather than a health problem. The solution is not to cure the sick, but a “fundamental transformation in the way society deals with sickness and disabilities” (p123). The goal and outcome of treatment is work, because work is therapeutic.

Worklessness is a serious risk to life. It is “one of the greatest known risks to public health: the risk is equivalent to smoking 10 packets of cigarettes per day” (p17). And: “No-one who is ill should have a straightforward right to incapacity benefit.”

David Freud adopts the same spurious psychosocial approach in a report that formed a review of the government’s Welfare to Work strategy. He cites Waddell and Burton: “Work is good for health.” (From “Is Work Good for your Health and Well-Being”, 2006)

Aylward has been widely criticised for giving “academic” credibility to the biopsychosocial model which was said to be the basis of the Cameron government’s disability benefits “reforms”. Aylward prepared reports that were quoting “illness belief” as being a supposedly more likely cause for many “common mental health conditions” or “musculoskeletal conditions”. There were repeated references made in some of his and Gordon Waddell’s research to alleged “malingering” by patients.

“Obstacles to recovery and return to work are primarily personal, psychological and social rather than health-related “medical” problems.”

“Beliefs, perceptions and personal responses lie at the heart of the problem [of worklessness through ill health].”  Worklessness and Health: A Symposium – Mansel Aylward.

It’s worth noting that the “musculoskeletal conditions” include backache, pulled ligaments and muscles, injured tendons, prolapsed spinal discs, sciatica – all of which a person may fully recover from. This category of conditions also includes osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and more serious and chronic illnesses caused by connective tissue disease – most people do not recover from these, and the biological damage that this family of diseases cause is not just confined to the musculoskeletal system. By using such a broad category of wide-ranging conditions, this effectively trivialises the most serious and often progressive diseases in the category.

This is why I visit my doctor, and not the government or a “researcher” with a vested interest, when I am unwell. I don’t believe anyone was ever cured by ideology. Nor do I believe work is a “health” outcome. If the protestant work ethic is such an effective cure for disease, the Victorian era “trial” certainly didn’t provide any empirical evidence of that in the premature mortality rates. In fact both men and women were debilitated by the age of forty. Poor nutrition, long hours and premature full-time employment all contributed to a short life expectancy. (Daily Life in Victorian Britain, Sally Mitchell, 1996.)

Although life span slowly increased within the Victorian age, notably as treatment became more advanced, surgery more effective, and medical knowledge more extensive, the average life span in 1840, in the Whitechapel district of London, was 45 years for the upper class and 27 years for tradesman. Laborers and servants lived only 22 years on average. (Victorian Britain Encyclopedia, Sally Mitchell, 1988.)  

Aylward claims that the principal negative influences on return to work are: Personal / psychological: Catastrophising pain (even minor degrees). Low Self-Efficacy. Social: Lone parenthood / unstable relationships – being a “Victim” of modern society in rented or social housing. General Affect: Being sad or low most of the time: Pervasive thoughts about personal illness. Cognitive: Minimal health literacy. Self-monitoring (symptoms). False beliefs. Economic: Availability of alternative sources of income / support (such as the availability of health care and welfare. (Pages 15-16).

“Catastrophising pain” is a phrase that crops up in a lot of biopsychosocial texts. It’s another of those made up words and phrases, like “worklessness”, “making work pay” and “culture of dependency” which are just ideological signposts to neoliberal notions of competitive individualism, anti-welfarism and personal responsibility, without any reference to reality. And if you make a claim that sickness and pain are “subjective”, surely attempts to describe how other people subjectively experience sickness and pain is even more subjective.

And accusing someone else of holding false beliefs regarding their own state?  Really? You can’t get further away from empirically verifiable statements than that.

The UK government and the Reform think tank claim that the availability of social security serves as a “disincentive” for ill and disabled people to return to work. The cuts to essential lifeline support for people who are ill and disabled that have been embedded in the systemic welfare “reforms” are all about “promoting economic self-sufficiency.”  

However, that is precisely what public national insurance contributions are about. The idea originally was that social provision should be designed to protect people from the ravages of absolute poverty and capitalism – it was intended to support poor citizens  – and to speculate that such support actually makes people poor is simply incoherent pseudoscientific nonsense and derisory political posturing from the “private” state neoliberals.

Aylward highlights more than once on his writing a perceived tension between “disability rights” and state notions of “benefit dependency.” (for example, on Page 8 of  Worklessness and Health: A Symposium). 

Yet Unum say:  “And contrary to popular belief, if your employees are aware of benefits – such as private health insurance or Income Protection – they are not likely to take more time off sick. Cass’ research shows that communicating about a wide range of employee benefits actually builds employee engagement and a more loyal workforce that takes less time off sick.”  Unum: How to communicate your employee benefits package.

However, there are conflicting messages to employers on this issue: “Sick-pay provisions may also encourage or discourage absence, and it is important that an organisation monitors and analyses its absence recording systems in order to pick up any perverse behaviours being driven by the sick-pay schemes. For example, it is not uncommon to see spikes of return to work when an absent employee moves to half pay or no pay.”

The cure for sick leave is work and other gems of wishdom

The biopsychosocial model has become a disingenuous euphemism for psychosomatic illness, which has been exploited by medical insurance companies and by governments keen to limit or deny access to social security, medical and social care.

This approach to disability and ill health has been used to purposefully question the extent to which people claiming social security bear personal responsibility for their own health status, rehabilitation and prompt return to work. It also leads to the alleged concern that a welfare system which provides a livable income to those with disabling health problems may provide “perverse incentives” for perverse behaviours, entrenching “worklessness” and a “culture of dependency”. It’s worth pointing out at this point that there has never been any empirical evidence of welfare “dependency”.

Instead of being viewed as a way of diversifying risk and supporting those who have suffered misfortune, social and private insurance systems are to be understood as perverse incentives that pay people to remain ill and keep them from being economically productive.

The government have made it clear that there are plans to merge health and employment services. In a move that is both unethical and likely to present significant risk of harm to many patients, health professionals are being tasked to deliver benefit cuts for the DWP. This involves measures to support the imposition of work cures, including setting employment as a clinical outcome and allowing medically unqualified job coaches to directly update a patient’s medical record.

The Conservatives (and the Reform think tank) have proposed mandatory treatment for people with long term conditions (which was first flagged up in the Conservative Party Manifesto) and this is currently under review, including whether benefit entitlements should be linked to “accepting appropriate treatments or support/taking reasonable steps towards “rehabilitation”.  The work, health and disability green paper and consultation suggests that people with the most severe illnesses in the support group may be subjected to welfare conditionality and sanctions.

Such a move would have extremely serious implications. It would be extremely unethical and makes the issue of consent to medical treatment very problematic if it is linked to the loss of lifeline support or the fear of loss of benefits. However this is clearly the direction that government policy is moving in and represents a serious threat to the human rights of patients and the independence of health professionals.

Behavioural medicine is prevalent in the United States, where many health problems are primarily viewed as behavioural in nature, as opposed to medical. The biopsychosocial model of illness has encouraged unsubstantiated claims that “positive attitude” or “fighting spirit” can help slow cancer and other progressive diseases, which may be very harmful to the patients themselves. Patients may come to believe that a poor prognosis or their poor progress results from “not having the right attitude”, when in fact it is most likely through no fault of their own.

Increasingly, insurers, policy makers and employers are pressing for policies that would redistribute expenses resulting from what they regard to be “voluntary” health risks to those who “choose” to take such risks.

Of course the long term aim of the Conservatives is to dismantle social security and the National Health Service (NHS) – free health care provision – entirely. Access to health care in the UK is currently being rationed because of the government’s systematic cuts to the NHS budget, and payments for some treatments have been introduced by stealth.  

Unum say:The Green Paper also calls for proposals to overhaul sickness certification and GPs’ approach to Fit Note. Unum has been calling for reform of Fit Notes so more people are able to access the right support to return to work as soon as possible.”

By that phrase “the right support” the predatory private company are simply singing from the same crib sheet as the government. Lots of mutual back patting and private handshakes have sealed the deal of doom for the welfare state long ago. The “right support” simply entails removing any support at all for ill and disabled people so that they are forced to work or starve and become destitute.

Unum’s modus operandi in the US was based on the unscrupulous practice of putting profit over human health. A 2004 investigation determined the practice began as early as 1994, and a CBS 60 Minutes report revealed the company established a quota for denied claims and actually offered incentives to employees who denied valid claims from policyholders. The company also delayed claims to make profit.

Unum was forced by state regulators to re-open 290,000 disability insurance claims that had been rejected, including a case where “Unum insisted that a man who had quintuple bypass surgery was fit to go back to his job at a stock brokerage firm, even though his doctors said the stress might kill him” and also, where Unum “refused benefits to a man who had had multiple heart attacks”

An investigation in California found that Unum systematically violated state insurance regulations and fraudulently denied claims using phony medical reports, policy misrepresentations, and biased investigations. The rogue company admitted to only reviewing 10 percent of the eligible cases for reopening under the terms of their legal settlement reached three years earlier.

Unum’s callous profiteering and illegal behaviour led California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi to state that “UnumProvident is an outlaw company. It is a company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion.” A Yale University research paper commented that, with regards to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other cases, Unum was “engaged in a program of deliberate bad faith denial of meritorious claims.” 

Yet this is the company admired and unscrupulously hired by UK governments as a “leader” in dealing unscrupulously with disability claims, and violating the human rights of disabled people.

The cooperation between the UK government and Unum stems entirely from a community of mutually vested interests between them, with both the corporate vultures and their allies in government wishing to reduce the amount of people who are able to claim disability through sickness; the government so it can pay less and less of our money in social security to people who need to draw on their national insurance for support and the insurance company so it can profitably contest or refuse more insurance claims. 

So, after the systematic cuts to social security have been persistently justified by an alleged need to “change the behaviours” of poor people and to “incentivise” them into work, we now have behavioural change treatments becoming more prominent in health care and medicine. In the same way that poor people are held responsible for poverty, ill people are held responsible for illness. Just as ministers claim that poor people are a “burden” on public services and tax payers, now they are saying ill people are a burden on the NHS and tax payers… just take a moment think that through.

The Conservatives came up with an idea that will kill two birds with one stone, as it were. They decided to demand that poor people think work is good for health. They plan to combine the goals of job centres and GP surgeries. Job coaches are the new health care professionals, apparently. Of course that anti-welfare and anti-health care strategy won’t change a thing, except to make people who are ill and out of work even more miserable, poor and ill.

Political authoritarianism, neoliberalism and façade democracy present a tragicomedy that creates the ultimate experimental théâtre de l’absurde, transforming lucrative big business propositions of crony capitalism into Schadenfreude; groaning clichés and stereotypes, political scapegoats and outgroups. Irrational, anecdotal populist “common sense” soundbites become incoherent, cognitive dissonance-inducing justification narratives. For ordinary citizens this fanfares increasingly irrational and draconian policies – the “science” of imaginary solutions to fictitious citizen “behavioural” problems in a Théâtre de la Cruauté (cruelty) – because of a strong motivation to control, rule and empty the public purse into private bank accounts (usually offshore), rather than recognise public needs and interests, and include the masses in democratic decision-making and the economy.

The government think that social justice is actually about “incentivising” those at the wrong end of politically constructed socioeconomic problems with punishments. I’m surprised we haven’t seen the reintroduction of public thrashings, flogging and the ducking stool. Meanwhile the people responsible for hoarding all the wealth and causing poverty for others – and to a considerable degree, contributing to health inequalities too – well they get the deluxe package of privileged incentives – tax cuts, high esteem, status and a pat on the head just for being sanctimonious, greedy, grasping, antisocial money hoarders, enforcing the equivalent of an economic enclosure act. They also have a lot of power and freedom, and so get to write a lot of policies that help them make profits and thus hoard even more of what was once our public wealth.

It’s curious how ministers claim that throwing money at a problem doesn’t change it. They’re right: the very worst of the hoarding and wealthy elite remain the biggest socioeconomic problem with faulty behaviours that we face as a society.

But poor people are poor because of a lack of money. Taking more money from them that they don’t have won’t cure poverty. You can’t thrash wealth into someone. You can’t thrash poverty out of someone. I really should not have to explain that like a patient parent explains the way things work to a toddler. But the Conservatives have a form of arrested development, and cling to their reductionist rituals of ontological security. They refuse to learn. The government are too busy telling us how they think society ought to be, they never have time or an inclination to listen to mere citizens. Big businesses take up every shred of their attention.

We know from recent history that once the Conservatives start to hold people responsible for problems that are not their fault, the public institutions that support people facing social difficulties are in peril – usually through the increasing privatisation of services, and ultimately, through the dismantling and transformation of publicly funded social support mechanisms to purely private profit generating mechanisms for the crony vulture capitalists. The only people set to gain in the long term from all of this political destruction and mis-spending from the public purse are the big vulture capitalist insurance companies, who have also had a hand in the construction of narratives of “personal responsibility” economic self sufficiency, thrift and self help. Perhaps Neoliberal governments should develop a policy of providing invisible bootstraps for citizens to pull themselves up from the damage being inflicted on them from a great height. 

When you hear the same incoherent crib sheet responses over and over, and see the intentional political stigmatisation of social groups, you come to recognise the pattern of preemptive justificationism and the malicious and greedy intent behind the draconian policies.

It’s goodbye to the welfare state, the NHS and democracy, and hello to the new wealth care. 

The ministry of plenty say that private interest is public interest.

All hail the corporatocracy.

 

imgres

 

Footnote

(Update: I shared this article in a few Facebook groups last night with no problem. Some 12 hours later, I just tried to share this article in one group on Facebook and received a ban from posting in groups immediately, with no reason provided for the restriction on my account. I can’t share posts for a week and suspect the content of the article is what has triggered the ban. I certainly haven’t violated any of Facebook’s community rules or posted this in a way that could have been construed as “spamming”.

I appealed Facebook’s seemingly random decision and have had no response at all. I posted this article and asked my friends to share it. After posting that request, my account restrictions have been extended by a further two hours, with no reason provided by Facebook.

Facebook are a client of Edelman Intelligence. Someone should tell both companies that if you insist on censoring information, such repressive action tends to ensure items are shared much more widely than they would have been ordinarily.)

Related

Unum welcomes Green Paper focus on Group Income Protection  Unum

MUTUAL BENEFITS  Private Eye

A Tale of two Models: Disabled People vs Unum, Atos, Government and Disability Charities – Debbie Jolly

Two Apparent Irregularities Involving UNUM, ATOS, And DWP – George K Berger

FROM THE BRITISH WELFARE STATE TO ANOTHER AMERICAN STATE – Mo Stewart

MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE A DISEASE DISAPPEAR  ME Action UK

Health at work – an independent review of sickness absence  Carol Black and David Frost

Trust Law as Regulatory Law: The Unum/Provident Scandal and Judicial Review of Benefit Denials under ERISA  John H. Langbein 

TRIAL BY ERROR: The Troubling Case of the PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study – David Tuller

Major breakthrough on PACE trial – George Faulkner

Fit for Work: a quick guide for General Practitioners – The government: our armchair doctors and shrinks

The new Work and Health Programme: government plan social experiments to “nudge” sick and disabled people into work

Let’s keep the job centre out of GP surgeries and the DWP out of our confidential medical records

Nudging conformity and benefit sanctions

 


 

My work is unfunded and I don’t make any money from it. But you can support Politics and Insights and contribute by making a donation which will help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others.

DonatenowButton