Proposed Insurance Benefit
I looked at my phone first thing this morning and there was a piece about CB-ESA (along with CB-JSA) being abolished in favour of an Insurance Benefit to run for 6 months. After which claimants who are not entitled to UC are left with nothing, expect PIP and whatever they have in the bank.
OK, it was one of the DOT.LIVE “news” sites but it scares me stiff. I’m not “unemployed”. I’m seriously disabled. I will not get back “on track”. I’m not rich. Other than CB-ESA, I live off my PIP and savings/interest. My living standards are far lower than when I was on income-related benefits. Not only is CB-ESA less with no premiums there’s so much I have to finance that was previously free. I won’t get by without CB-ESA.
Another piece earlier in the week suggested the IB is for new claimants only (poor souls). This has been as clear as mud since first muted in the Green Paper earlier this year. Does anyone know more?
Comments
-
Absolutely understand where you’re coming from, it’s unsettling when headlines make it sound like CB-ESA is on the chopping block. But nothing’s final yet. The government’s still working through the details, and the Pathways to Work White Paper is the one that will lay it all out properly, who’s affected, what replaces CB-ESA, and whether it’s just new claimants or everyone. Until that’s published, it’s mostly speculation and clickbait.
I really appreciate why you’re worried. I’m still lucky enough to be able to work 30 hours a week, but a lot of people aren’t in that position, and for them, losing CB-ESA would be devastating. It’s about time they released the White Paper they promised for autumn. That’s the key document that moves things from vague proposals to actual plans for how the benefits system will look going forward.
1 -
Those are government proposals, not confirmed changes.
No one knows anything much at this point.
0 -
Thanks for your reply.
I have no private pension to look forward to, I really need CB-ESA until state retirement age. The same is true for many of us who were born very disabled or who developed serious disability early in life, before establishing a career.
I wonder when the White Paper will be published.
0 -
If you are not entitled to UC due to savings/capital, if the worst came to worst you could live off that capital until you are below the threshold to claim UC.
I'm not saying it would be fair or desirable, but the option exists.
0 -
New Style Employment and Support Allowance and New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance are set to be replaced by a new unemployment insurance scheme around 2028 to 2029.
It is time limited, and once it ends, there is no guarantee anyone, whether currently on CB ESA or Universal Credit, will have the same level of support, if any at all.This is not just about contributions based claims. These changes affect anyone relying on sickness, disability, or work related support.
The Social Security Advisory Committee has already asked the government to explain how people with no realistic prospect of work will be protected, but so far no firm commitments have been made.
The White Paper is supposed to clarify what is actually being proposed and whether current recipients will be protected. It was promised for autumn, but there is still no confirmed publication date.
0 -
We know that the WCA and ESA are going subject to new legislation. People on UC will be protected (to some degree) by other premiums within that unweildy system. It is people on CB-ESA (legacy and New Style), without UC entitlement who appear to be in line to be hardest hit because there's no replacement UC element/premium. Nonetheless, thanks for your insight.
0 -
I do not consider this a good proposal on your part or one that the DWP/government/Joe Bloggs with his "Tory" newspaper would encourage.
It might come about but I had hoped that I would get to the end of my life “taking” only this relatively small sum plus PIP from the state. I don’t approve of people “spending money down” to retain benefits unless it is for essentials.
Moreover, there is always a risk of the DWP disapproving of expenditure, considering it as “self-deprivation of capital”.
To conclude, I'm already living off my capital. What was free on means-tested benefits is now paid for in full from a much smaller pot of ESA.
0 -
Afternoon all,
We have removed a number of comments from this discussion. Please remember to keep comments supportive and non-personal.
We all have different ways of approaching the world and different things we wish to discuss. There is no obligation to respond to a discussion that doesn't interest you and it's important to remember we are all real people, dealing with real things.
If you see something you feel is inappropriate for the community, please report it to us using the 'flag' button at the bottom of each comment.
2 -
0
-
I dont understand any if this is been told im on income based esa on middle of migration what does it mean if your contrubtation based and income related
0 -
This proposed reform probably won't affect you, @Catherine21, if you are moving to UC.
The people who will be clobbered are those who are not eligible for UC because if their CB-ESA is abolished in favour of a time-limited UIB they will be left with nothing… unless they have some prospect of employment which I certainly do not.
That's an over-simplification, I know, but I'm just saying don't worry about this one.
0 -
Everything written is for clickbait or to install fear and terror to the people its sick
0 -
I understand why people are worried, especially those on CB-ESA who feel exposed by the proposed changes. But it’s important to be accurate, because reassurance based on assumptions can do more harm than good.
The truth is, no one is guaranteed long term sickness support under the new system. Not people on CB-ESA, and not those on UC with LCWRA either. The direction of travel, based on the Green Paper and the UC Bill, is toward tighter criteria and reassessment for everyone.
The government plans to introduce a new “severe disability” category. Only those who meet that definition are likely to retain sickness related payments. Everyone else could be reclassified as job seekers, even if they are still unwell.
We haven’t seen the White Paper yet, so the final rules aren’t confirmed. But the risk is shared. It’s not about which benefit someone is on now, it’s about whether they will qualify under the new rules later.
I receive PIP myself (no other benefits), and I could well lose that under the new criteria. My conditions might not meet the ‘severe’ threshold they’re introducing. That’s the reality many of us are facing.
The one piece of good news is that if someone does qualify for PIP under the new rules, it won’t be means tested. So even with savings or other income, people in the “severe” category will be able to claim PIP.
This isn’t a one-off tweak, it’s a slow-motion eligibility purge dressed up as reform to slash the benefit bill. And the only thing guaranteed right now is uncertainty.
1 -
You are right. However, i opened this thread to discuss one overlooked aspect of what is proposed rather than the entire purge. It wasn't about PIP ( which I claim) or UC (which I don't).
Sometimes a thread needs to be specific otherwise everything gets lost in one endless discussion.
I was certainly not seeking to stir up controversy.
1 -
Thanks, @Zipz I appreciate your intent to highlight one overlooked aspect, and I agree that threads can easily spiral. But I think it’s worth revisiting Catherine’s actual question, because it wasn’t answered.
She asked what it means to be on income based ESA during migration, and how contribution based and income related ESA differ in that context. That’s a valid and practical concern, especially given how the reforms could affect people differently depending on their current entitlement and migration pathway.
Saying "this probably won’t affect you" and "don’t worry about this one" may have been meant kindly, but it risks giving false reassurance. The truth is, everyone, whether on CB ESA, income based ESA, or UC with LCWRA, is potentially affected. The new system isn’t preserving existing categories. It is introducing a new severe disability threshold, and only those who meet it are likely to retain sickness related support.
So yes, people without UC entitlement may be hit hard, but that doesn’t mean those migrating to UC are safe. Migration doesn’t guarantee protection, and the final rules haven’t been published. Until we see the White Paper, the risk is shared.
0 -
You've just said that!
Is it not possible on this huge forum for some discussions to reqmain specific? It ought to be.
Yes. I did mean to be kind. Catherine posts a lot about her worries and this particular reform did not appear to be along those of concern to her.!
0 -
Catherine’s question was about migration and mixed ESA types, and under the new reforms every category is being redefined. The risk isn’t limited to one group, as you seem to suggest, it’s structural. And with the final criteria still unpublished, reassurance, however well meant, can unintentionally mislead.
I just wanted to make sure that was visible for anyone reading along. I certainly wasn’t criticising, and if it came across that way, I apologise.
0 -
I have not suggested anything of sort. I appreciate what you say. However, I still think it ought to be possible to some focused threads to be posted without being turned into generalist discussions of the wider issue.
0 -
Hi all,
We're pausing this discussion temporarily to give us time to catch up on such an important topic. That's not to say any one has done anything wrong and we can see everyone is being supportive but the team are juggling a lot at the moment and need a little bit of time to read through and catch up. We will aim to un-pause it as soon as possible.
1 -
Thank you for everyone that's shared and contributed so far. The proposals are worrying for everyone and I think we all agree it's important that information shared is accurate and relevant.
Zipz, I understand your point about wanting to discuss this particular area of the proposals as those claiming only contribution-based benefits can be overlooked.
While the overall proposals impact both income-related and contribution-based claimants, the proposed 'unemployment insurance benefit' is focused only on those claiming contribution-based benefits and it is important that that discussion is not lost in the wider proposals as it could easily be overlooked.
Going back to your original question:
"Another piece earlier in the week suggested the IB is for new claimants only (poor souls). This has been as clear as mud since first muted in the Green Paper earlier this year. Does anyone know more?"
Unfortunately until the white paper is released everything is just speculative right now. As soon as anything more is known, we will try to get the information out there.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.6K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 100 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 143 Announcements and information
- 24.4K Talk about life
- 5.9K Everyday life
- 446 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 882 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 545 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 625 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 870 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 930 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.5K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.9K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.7K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income