Over-65s with muscle pain urged to check if they can get £441 DWP payment
Older people suffering from muscle or joint pain are being urged to check if they're eligible for extra financial help from the Government, possibly through the Attendance Allowance benefit.
This allowance, managed by the Department for Work and Pensions, helps with additional costs if you have a disability or health condition severe enough that you need someone else to look after you.
It's paid at two different rates, and the amount you get depends on how much care your condition requires. You could be entitled to £73.90 or £110.40 a week to help with personal care if you have a health condition and you're of State Pension age or older.
According to figures, arthritis remains the most common condition claimed for by nearly 484,000 pensioners on Attendance Allowance across Britain.
However, there are also 74,804 people over 66 claiming support for muscle, joint and back pain. Joint pain, especially lower back pain, is very common and while it usually gets better within a few weeks, it can sometimes last longer or come back, particularly as we get older.
Some 2.5 million people across the UK suffer from back pain every day of the year and many may not realise they could be entitled to financial help to cover any extra costs the condition brings, reports the Daily Record.
Data from the DWP shows that 1.7 million elderly individuals are currently receiving support through Attendance Allowance, and it's important to note that having a carer is not a requirement for claiming.
The eligibility for Attendance Allowance isn't determined by savings or income and is paid every four weeks. This means those on the lower rate will receive roughly £295 each pay period, while those on the higher rate will receive around £441.
Across the UK, an estimated 20 million people are living with arthritis or similar conditions affecting the joints. Therefore, if you're suffering from arthritis, back pain, joint pain, muscle pain or chronic pain, you could be eligible for support.
Who is eligible
You can get Attendance Allowance if you've reached State Pension age and the following apply:
your disability or health condition is severe enough for you to need help caring for yourself or someone to supervise you, for your own or someone else's safety
you have a physical disability (including sensory disability, for example blindness), a mental disability (including learning difficulties), or a health condition
you have needed that help for at least 6 months
You must also:
have been in Great Britain for at least 2 of the last 3 years (this does not apply if you're a refugee or have humanitarian protection status)
not be subject to immigration control (unless you're a sponsored immigrant)
be in Great Britain when you claim - there are some exceptions, such as members and family members of the armed forces
be habitually resident in the UK, Ireland, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands
not get Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Adult Disability Payment (ADP) or Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (SADLA)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The staggering wait for dementia diagnosis laid bare in alarming report
A report by charity Care England reveals patients are waiting up to two years for a dementia diagnosis, describing the situation as a "government failure". The review, titled 'The Current State Of Dementia Diagnosis & Care In England', highlights significant gaps in diagnosis, regional disparities, and challenges in care coordination. Waiting times from referral to diagnosis have drastically increased, now reaching two years in some instances, compared to a maximum of 34 weeks in 2019. Care England is calling for a unified national strategy, enhanced dementia-specific workforce training, and sufficient sustainable funding to address the growing demand. The report proposes specific changes including a national standardised diagnostic pathway and a nationally mandated standard of care across every stage of the dementia care pathway.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Pay doctors more – by slashing the salaries of useless bureaucrats
British state dysfunction is so all-encompassing that working out where one problem begins and another ends is a time-consuming activity all on its own. Take the threatened resident doctors' strikes. It's not an unreasonable stance to point out that salaries are below their 2008 peak, and ask for a pay rise to make up for this. It is difficult to hand these out, however, when NHS productivity is down somewhere between 5pc and 11pc on 2019/20 levels, making pay awards hard to justify. This is particularly so when the Government is spending £111bn on debt interest this year alone, local council budgets have already been shredded and social care is a mess. If you're confused about how these things tie together, bear with me. Let's start with the doctors. The British Medical Association (BMA) claims that below-inflation pay rises means that resident (junior) doctors are worse off in pay terms today than they were 17 years ago. This is hard to dispute: whether you prefer to measure inflation with the Consumer Price Index or the Retail Price Index (RPI), the broad thrust is that prices have risen faster than pay for residents. In a market system, this would simply be how supply is matched to demand. In the UK healthcare system, however, there is no real market. The NHS is by far the largest provider of medical services in the country, which gives it an enormous degree of power over the wages of trained doctors. For those starting out, the deal is even worse. In order to qualify to practice in Britain, med school graduates must complete two years of training. This, in turn, takes place with NHS employers. It's not particularly difficult to see how this might lead to unwelcome compression of the wage premium for people who've just slogged through years of strenuous education: foundation year one doctors earn above median but below mean UK wages, with foundation year two still falling below the 75th percentile for the economy as a whole. That there could be a relatively straightforward way to raise the pay of doctors: abolish the NHS, and let the market work. Unfortunately, given that Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that he would never, under any circumstances, pay for a loved one to be treated privately rather than wait their turn on an NHS list, this option is probably off the table. This same opposition to reform and private sector involvement makes it hard to see a clean route to restoring lost productivity in the health service in the near future. In other words, if we're going to give doctors a pay rise, the money will have to come from other budgets. Quite a lot of money, as it happens. The BMA wants 'pay restoration' to 2008 levels. So do many others: it is a testament to almost two decades of economic mismanagement that private sector wages earlier this year were also below their 2008 peak. With the BMA increasingly aggressive in its negotiating stance, its critics are entitled to note that countries like Australia and Canada are far more stringent in restricting the ability of doctors to strike. Carry on in this vein, and they may well lose the sympathies of the public altogether. Assume for a moment though that we choose to grant this rise. The increase the resident doctors are asking for is enough to make up for a 21pc fall in wages, so a raise in the region of 27pc. According to the Nuffield Trust, each 1pc uptick in resident doctors' pay costs around £51m. The total cost of a 27pc rise would be somewhere in the region of £1.4bn. This is excessive, but it's a fair point that doctors may well feel undervalued relative to other jobs. It can't feel particularly good for resident doctors on £46,000, for instance, to see the NHS hiring in diversity commissars on salaries of £122,000. And it doesn't seem quite right for highly skilled workers who work long hours in unpleasant conditions, risking exposure to dangerous infectious diseases, to be paid less than unemployable Whitehall apparatchiks dialling into Zoom calls in their dressing gowns. Here, then, is a modest proposal. The total public sector pay bill was £270bn in 2023/24. If we can cut it by 0.5pc, then the doctors can have their pay rise. Figures from the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest that local government spending on diversity roles cost roughly £23m in 2023, alongside £13 million in the NHS. Thirty-six million towards a £1.4bn black hole is not a promising start. In fact, even taking the maximal savings implied by one estimate of public sector spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs – £557m a year – would still only get us a third of the way towards paying for it. And not all of these savings would be free to spend. Local government finances are in a shambolic state, with real budgets down 9pc on their 2010 levels. The slow squeeze of rising social care, school transport and housing costs, meanwhile, is eroding waste simply by erasing discretionary spending. Any savings made on woke waste might have to go towards social care, or if it does go to the NHS, it may actually risk making it worse. How, you ask? The single biggest productivity challenge facing NHS executives is discharging patients on time. Blocked beds stymie the flow of patients through hospitals, in turn slowing the flow of patients off waiting lists. These delays are most often caused by waiting for support for the patient at home – often adult social care arranged by local government bodies scrabbling for cash. Spending more on social care might be better for NHS productivity than actually spending on the NHS itself. At this point, however, I have some good news: we can do this, and still restore doctors' pay in real terms. The BMA's calculation of the fall in doctors' pay since 2010 is fundamentally flawed. It uses the now discredited RPI measure of inflation which is known to overestimate rises in the price level (among other problems, when prices rise and then fall back to their starting level, the RPI can still show prices as having risen). This is obviously absurd, and after years of dragging its heels, the Government conceded as much. As a result, from 2030 onwards the RPI is set to simply mirror an alternative, better-calculated measure of inflation, saving the Government a couple of billion each year in the process. In other words, the doctors' pay demands seemed excessive because they were excessive. If the BMA had used better measures of inflation, they would be looking for a 5pc pay rise, or £255m – less than half of the estimated DEI spend. And this, in turn, gives us our desired outcome: we can give the doctors actual pay restoration, pay for it by cutting public sector jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place, and have some money leftover to ease the strain on social care into the bargain, improving NHS productivity – an all-round win for taxpayers.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Calls for Scottish disability payment to be simplified
Led by charity leader Edel Harris, the review calls for automatic entitlement to the benefit in some cases. An independent review of the Scottish disability payment has called for the benefit to be simplified and made more accessible. The report, commissioned by the Scottish Government, found while the adult disability payment is more 'compassionate' than the UK benefit it replaced, some people still face barriers and distress when applying. Ms Harris welcomed several changes from the previous assessments carried out by the UK Department for Work and Pensions, but said there is more to be done to deliver a human rights-based approach to the benefit that delivers for disabled people. The chairwoman of the Adult Disability Payment Review made more than 50 recommendations to improve the service. They include embedding a 'trauma-informed, stigma-free' approach to assessments, simplifying the application process, improving communication from staff, and reviewing the eligibility criteria. The report recommends the application process is made easier for those with fluctuating conditions and mental health problems, and calls for welfare advice services to be sustainably funded. Ms Harris said: 'Adult disability payment has been described by many as a step-change – kinder in tone and more dignified in approach. 'But too often, disabled people still find the system difficult to navigate, time-consuming, and anxiety-inducing. 'I heard consistently that if we are to realise social security as an investment in people, it is important to ensure that the eligibility criteria fulfil this goal. 'This review highlights the importance of a system that is not only compassionate, but practical and accessible. 'The recommendations are based on real experiences and a shared commitment to making adult disability payment work better for everyone who needs it.' Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'The Scottish Government's approach to providing social security is a compassionate one, based on dignity, fairness and respect, and I am very encouraged to read the feedback from disabled people that this has been reflected in their positive interactions with Social Security Scotland. 'While the UK Government seeks to make cuts to the vital support disabled people rely on, I want to make clear that we will not cut adult disability payment. 'Instead, we will work to protect and enhance Scotland's social security system, improving on what we have achieved so far. 'I very much appreciate the comprehensive recommendations this report provides for how we can improve adult disability payment.' Ms Somerville said the Scottish Government will 'carefully consider all of the recommendations' in the report and provide its initial response by January next year.
