Elderly with arthritis to be hardest hit by Labour benefits cuts
Elderly people with arthritis and back pain stand to lose the most from Liz Kendall's benefit cuts.
The Work and Pensions Secretary's controversial benefit reforms, which have fuelled outrage among Labour's backbench MPs, will hit older people with physical ailments the hardest, analysis shows.
They stand stand to lose £4,500 on average per year if their cases are reassessed, while young people with mental health problems are more likely to be spared.
It comes as Sir Keir Starmer and Ms Kendall face a growing rebellion over welfare changes announced in March.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which analysed data from Department for Work and Pensions, people suffering from conditions such as anxiety and depression are also less likely to be affected.
The finding is likely to prove controversial, as Government ministers have repeatedly warned that some young working lives are destined for the 'scrapheap' amid a surge in sickness and disability benefit claims related to mental health.
Ms Kendall meanwhile vowed to protect those who 'cannot work' because of ill health while creating a more 'pro-work system'.
However, the analysis suggests that those bearing the brunt of tightening criteria to disability benefits – known as personal independence payments (PIP) – will be those struggling with physical pain.
People dealing with back pain, arthritis and other regional musculoskeletal diseases will be among the biggest losers from the changes.
Similarly, those struggling with chronic pain syndromes, heart conditions and respiratory diseases will lose out most if reassessed.
People with ADHD and autism are meanwhile less likely to experience benefit cuts than cancer patients and people suffering from multiple sclerosis.
The IFS also found that older disability benefit claimants face a greater risk of having their benefits cut if their case is reviewed compared to young people.
More than half of people aged 40 and over on disability benefits are at risk of losing out because of announcements at the Spring Statement.
In contrast, this applies to fewer than one in 10 people aged 16 to 19 and a quarter of 20 to 29-year-olds.
The analysis raises serious questions about how successful the Government's welfare reforms will be in boosting employment rates.
It comes as the number of young people not in work, education or training approaches 1m, sparking alarm from officials.
Research by the Resolution Foundation last year found people in their 20s were more likely to claim they were too sick to work than those in their 30s and 40s.
Separate research has also found 1m more people aged 16 to 34 have a work-limiting health condition compared to a decade ago, driven by ill mental health and conditions like autism and ADHD.
Britain's sickness and disability benefit bill had been on course to hit £100bn a year by the end of the decade before the changes announced in March. It will now instead rise to £97.7bn from £81.2bn currently.
Some 800,000 people stand to lose out on PIPs worth on average £4,500 a year from the welfare changes.
This includes 370,000 people who currently claim PIP and a further 430,000 who would have been entitled to it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
Can you trust Rachel Reeves' spending review numbers?
Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. The Home Office is the last department to finalise their budget with Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of Wednesday's spending review. All eyes are on Yvette Cooper and the noise that comes out of Westminster today and tomorrow that will indicate how much cash the home secretary has secured for things like policing. And, with Nigel Farage due to make a speech today, Sam and Anne catch up on a wild weekend for Reform - at the start of which party chairman Zia Yusuf resigned over a proposed ban on burkas - only for him to reverse his decision and return 48 hours later.
Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
One million blood donors needed to meet demand and avoid 'red alert' shortage, NHS warns
The NHS has warned the UK needs one million regular blood donors to maintain supply and avoid a "red alert" - which means supplies are so low there is a threat to public safety. Last July, officials issued an "amber alert" for stocks of O negative and O positive blood after cyberattacks hit London hospitals. NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) said blood stocks have remained low since. Dr Jo Farrar, NHSBT chief executive, said: "Our stocks over the past 12 months have been challenging. If we had a million regular donors, this would help keep our stocks healthy - you'd truly be one in a million. "Please book an appointment today, experience how good it feels to save lives, and come and do it again in a few months." The NHSBT added just 2% of the population - under 800,000 people - sustained the whole of England's blood supply over the past 12 months. It said there is a "critical" need for more donors who have O negative blood, the universal type used in emergencies or when a patient's blood type is unknown. It is typically carried by air ambulances and emergency vehicles - and makes up around 16% of hospital blood orders. There is also a need for more black donors, who are more likely to have specific blood types which can help treat people with sickle cell disease. Health Minister Baroness Merron said: "The NHS is in urgent need of more lifesaving blood donors from all backgrounds. "We are working alongside NHS Blood and Transplant to make donating blood easier than ever before, opening up new donor centres and making appointments available closer to home." Women can donate blood once every four months and men can do so once every three.
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. 'Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time' Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients". Doctors' letter highlight concerns about the risk to: Patients Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis. Families Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is 'better' than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion. Palliative care Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services. The medical workforce Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a 'treatment'. Provision of adequate care Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.
