Lcwra/New health element
Hi, anyone familiar with the greenpaper proposals, Is the Substantial risk still being scrapped from the LCWRA (New health element) please, ie if Substantial risk was your reason for LCWRA will this element payment be Lost come Reassessment Before the new changes, and/or After.
Particularly if you're reassessed Before the changes would you lose LCWRA element if you were given it due to Substantial risk.
Many thanks
Comments
-
Hi @emc123, this is a great and important question—and understandably confusing, as the proposals in the Pathways to work Green Paper are deliberately designed to be complex and, in many areas, quite vague.
From what we know so far from the Green paper proposal :
Yes, the government has proposed to abolish the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which currently includes both LCW and LCWRA. This means that the LCWRA designation—and therefore , the “Substantial Risk” route into LCWRA—would no longer exist under the new system.
Instead, under the new proposals, PIP will become the single functional assessmentfor determining eligibility for health-related financial support within Universal Credit. However, the government also proposes to “modernise” the PIP assessments (see point 157–159 of the green paper), which raises further uncertainty about how those future assessments will be designed and what criteria they will involve. So, the honest answer is -we don’t yet know what these new assessments/criteria will actually look like. The only fact we know about the proposed plan is that a new additional requirement will be introduced, requiring claimants to score at least four points in one daily living activity to qualify for the daily living component of PIP.Therefore eligibility for the UC health element will instead be linked directly to receiving the PIP daily living component.
Specifically, point 114 and 115 in the Green Paper confirm:
“Both UC and PIP will still exist in the reformed system. UC will remain a means-tested benefit for those people that are in work and on a low income, or are out of work. Without the WCA eligibility criteria, the additional health element in UC will no longer be linked in any way to someone’s capacity to work or their work status. Instead, eligibility to the additional UC health element will be based on whether someone is receiving any Daily Living Award in PIP.”
So under the new system, there will be no assessment of work capability and therefore, no route via “Substantial Risk” either. The proposed new health element of UC will instead rely on receiving any PIP Daily Living award.
To your specific question about reassessment before the new rules come in:
If someone is reassessed now, before April 2026, they would still be assessed under the current system ,including the Substantial Risk criteria as the proposed changes haven’t yet taken effect.
In point 133, the Green Paper also states:
“We will guarantee that no-one who has been found LCWRA prior to April 2026 and remains LCWRA following reassessment will see their UC health element entitlement changed.”
This suggests that those who already have LCWRA before April 2026 and continue to meet the criteria on reassessment will not lose their health element, at per the script within the Green proposal document. Also, for this group, the UC health element rate will be frozen at £97 per week until 2029/30, although they may receive an increased standard allowance to make up for it.
So in summary:
• The Substantial Risk route will no longer exist after the abolition of the WCA.
• If you’re reassessed before the changes come into effect(no one knows when), current rules (including Substantial Risk) still apply.
• If you retain LCWRA status after reassessment before April 2026, the Green Paper says you will not see your UC health element reduced, at least through 2029/30.
• After the reforms, eligibility for extra support will depend on PIP Daily Living criteria, not LCWRA or Substantial Risk.
Finally, like many of us on Scope, I feel these proposals are designed to confuse and obscure what is really at stake for disabled people. Many crucial issues, like the one you’ve raised are not being properly consulted on, which is unacceptable.
Please take a moment to check out the Scope Green Paper Proposals thread on the home page if you haven’t already. It’s vital we continue to support one another and speak up while we still can.
We must not let these changes go unchallenged.
Please note: I am not a benefits advisor. I’m simply a disabled person using Scope to share what I’ve understood after reading these proposals, with the aim of challenging the benefit cuts and empowering others to do the same. Moving on , It might also be helpful for you to discuss questions about the Green Paper proposals in the main thread, as many members could benefit from the discussion and contribute their own perspectives.
Best Wishes0 -
Great I am told it's 27 months before my LCWRA is reviewed so after changes thus highly likely fail me rule fit for work
0 -
They said that they would restart reassessments on April 2026, and would start with people with short prognosis, risky pregnancies, and people who were awarded LCWRA on the basis of "substantial risk". Therefore, it's interesting to figure out why they've included those with "substantial risk"!
1 -
“They said that they would restart reassessments on April 2026”-
👆I’m not sure what you are implying here? “In the green paper proposals,There is no mention of reassessments restarting on April 2026. Please see below in bold.No one knows what the government is considering.
I’m sorry, but I cannot offer any more answers to things no one truly knows about. Our discussions here on separate threads could potentially disadvantage other members on our Scope Green paper threadcontributing, so please kindly consider posting in the main thread.
This is a very difficult period for all of us. Let’s stay united, fight for our rights, and respond to and oppose through the consultation links directly. Everything I’ve shared here is straight from the official Pathways to Work Green Paper proposal pages. You can find the link to accessible format versions of the documents in the Scope thread.
Section 115.This means we would focus any health-related financial support in UC on those with long-term conditions and disabilities that have lasted for three months and are expected to last for at least a further nine months. We are considering how any change of this kind could affect individuals who currently meet limitedcapability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) criteria due to non-functional special circumstances; for example, those affected by cancer treatment, people with short term conditions that get better, women with a high-risk pregnancy and those currently classed as having substantial risk.Individuals in these categories may not be eligible for PIP, and therefore the UChealth element, in the reformed system.
Section 116
In the reformed system these groups will still be eligible for UC and for theproposed new higher rate Unemployment Insurance(consultation in progress ) if they meet relevant eligibility criteria.Individuals who are nearing the end of their life with 12 months or less to live will continue to be able to access PIP through the existing fast track route (Special Rules for End of Life in (SREL)to ensure we protect those who are nearing the end of their life, irrespective of the duration of their illness0 -
I can't thank you enough for your kind & considered reply :-)
I've a much better understanding now of this particular part of the Proposals. I've done my best to keep myself educated on these Absurd changes & have signed every darned petition out there, & emailed my MP.
I'll pop back onto the Green Paper thread here as it's been a while so I'll catch myself up :)
You're a Treasure thanks so much 🥰 x
0 -
Oh, so unlikely to Reassess before next April? That's breathing space, still a disgraceful decision to mess with the minds of those with Substantial Risk they should Know the clue is in the title 😞 x
0 -
Thanks @emc123 for your kindness -though I truly don’t feel worthy of such compliments. I’m just one among many here; what really matters is how we support each other through this. It’s all of us together that make this community strong.
These so-called “reforms” are not reforms-they’re horrible & targeted cuts dressed up as morality and “common sense,” designed to strip support from those who need it most without even involving us in the conversation. The consultation process itself is inaccessible and tokenistic, but we still have a chance to be heard by June-so let’s all respond, together, with strength and clarity.
I’ll see you on the Scope’s main green paper discussion thread , where we’ll keep standing up for each other, side by side.
Best Wishes xx✌️
2 -
“They said that they would restart reassessments on April 2026”-
"👆I’m not sure what you are implying here? “In the green paper proposals,There is no mention of reassessments restarting on April 2026."This was stated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a week later following the release of the Green paper, unless you treat the OBR as a YouTuber.
It said:
"The Government will reintroduce reassessments for claimants placed in the LCWRA group prior to April 2026 with certain short-term prognoses (such as high-risk pregnancies or cancer treatment) or who, without LCWRA, faced substantial risk to their physical or mental health."
0 -
Yep, no reassessment until at earliest April 2026. Unless one has not been reassessed for many years, say 7 years or more, etc, as many people in this case have reported to have received ESA50 and even have gone through the WCA.
1 -
I hear your frustration, and I really do understand it -we’re all trying to make sense of a deeply confusing and distressing situation created by the Government . You asked about what’s in the Green Paper, and I simply pointed you to the relevant sections that are publicly available for anyone to read. I have no control over the accuracy of the OBR report or the government’s interpretations.
But I want to say this gently —as disabled people, none of us should have to carry the burden of justifying or unpacking these policies alone. Like you, I feel confused, hurt, and very angry by how this has all been handled by the government . For my own wellbeing, I’ll need to step back from this particular discussion, as it’s starting to feel like we’re going in circles -and that takes a toll on all of us.
Please know I’m always standing alongside you in this fight.
Best wishes, always.
1 -
I'm more than frustrated, as I'm disgusted about seeing Keir Starmer uttering that disabled people and people with long term health conditions have more a behavioural problem and need to change their behaviour, which is adding insult to injury.
They're mentally torturing.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 15K Start here and say hello!
- 7.1K Coffee lounge
- 82 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 106 Announcements and information
- 23.6K Talk about life
- 5.5K Everyday life
- 300 Current affairs
- 2.3K Families and carers
- 858 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 503 Money and bills
- 3.5K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 868 Relationships
- 254 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 858 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 916 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 38.4K Talk about your benefits
- 5.9K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.3K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 7.7K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.5K Benefits and income