Benefits and Work has obtained details of the conditions which have the highest number of awards with no 4-point or higher descriptors. 

The figures, provided under the Freedom of Information Act, show that Labour's PIP cuts are overwhelmingly aimed at older, but still working age, claimants with physical health conditions, many of whom will have been employed for most of their adult life and many of whom will still be employed.. 

Almost half (46%) of all working age PIP claimants are at risk of losing their award on review from November 2026  

Nearly eight out of ten awards where back pain is the primary disabling condition are at risk under the proposed 4-point or higher rule

This is closely followed by arthritis, where more than three quarters of awards are threatened.

The conditions least likely to lose out are learning disabilities, where only 3% are at risk and autistic spectrum disorders at 6%

These figures only cover working age claimants.  There is a lack of clarity from the DWP about what will happen to pension age claimants from November 2026.

According to these statistics there are a total of 2,795,000 working age PIP claimants and 1,296,000 (46%) are at risk of losing their award on review from November 2026.

 

Rank

Health condition category

Volume of PIP Claimants in receipt of Daily Living component

Claimants awarded less than 4 points in all daily living activities

Volume in each condition group

Proportion in each condition group

1

Back pain

194,000

154,000

79%

2

Arthritis

279,000

214,000

77%

3

Other Regional Musculoskeletal Diseases

136,000

97,000

71%

4

Chronic pain syndromes

173,000

118,000

68%

5

Cardiovascular diseases

61,000

38,000

62%

6

Respiratory diseases

83,000

45,000

55%

7

Anxiety and depression

587,000

282,000

48%

8

Multiple sclerosis and neuropathic diseases

80,000

38,000

48%

9

All other conditions

272,000

126,000

46%

10

Other neurological diseases

97,000

35,000

36%

11

Cerebrovascular disease

56,000

19,000

34%

12

Cancer

70,000

23,000

33%

13

Epilepsy

36,000

11,000

30%

14

Other psychiatric disorders

90,000

25,000

28%

15

Cerebral Palsy and Neurological Muscular Diseases

47,00

11,000

24%

16

Psychotic disorders

112,000

26,000

23%

17

ADHD/ADD

75,000

14,000

19%

18

Autistic spectrum disorders

206,000

13,000

6%

19

Learning disabilities

188,000

7,000

3%

DWP Notes

Health condition category is based on primary health condition as recorded on the PIP Computer System at time of latest assessment. Many claimants have multiple health conditions but only primary condition is available for analysis.

Only the 18 disabling condition groups which make up the highest proportions of the PIP caseload are displayed in this table.

Other disabling condition groups which cover smaller proportions of the PIP caseload are covered in the "Other Conditions" category. This includes:

  • Visual Diseases
  • Other General Musculoskeletal Diseases
  • Endocrine Diseases
  • Hearing Disorders
  • Gastrointestinal Diseases
  • Genitourinary Diseases
  • Skin Diseases
  • Autoimmune Diseases (Connective Tissue Disorders)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Diseases of the Liver, Gallbladder or Biliary Tract
  • Haematological Diseases
  • Metabolic Diseases
  • Multisystem and Extremes of Age
  • Diseases of the Immune System

Anxiety and Depression includes the following conditions recorded in the PIP Stat Xplore data:

  • Anxiety disorders - Other / type not known
  • Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
  • Stress reaction disorders - Other / type not known
  • Generalised anxiety disorder
  • Phobia - Specific
  • Phobia - Social
  • Agoraphobia
  • Panic disorder
  • Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)
  • Anxiety and depressive disorders - mixed
  • Conversion disorder (hysteria)
  • Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)
  • Dissociative disorders - Other / type not known
  • Somatoform disorders - Other / type not known
  • Depressive disorder
  • Bipolar affective disorder (Hypomania / Mania)
  • Mood disorders - Other / type not known

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    A comment via Scope.

    Money bills can be used to adjust payment amounts (freeze, increase, or cut benefits like Universal Credit) because they focus on spending. What they can't do is change who qualifies, how claims are assessed, or the conditions for receiving benefits. While money bills can tweak payments, major reforms require full legislation.

    Most welfare reforms involve both financial changes and rule modifications, which is why they usually need primary legislation, not just a money bill.

    If the government wants to alter eligibility, assessments, or conditions, it must use primary legislation, which takes longer as MPs and Lords debate and vote on it.

    You asked what we can do, all of us can continue to contact MPs, ministers, and organisations. This is important for raising awareness and pressuring decision-makers before these changes become law. It’s important to highlight how these changes could push many people into poverty, as policymakers need to understand the human consequences, not just the financial savings.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Hi moderators, i think your system may have a glitch. My last post had a bit missing. This happened another time recently too. 
    I know it’s IT stuff, but maybe you could flag it. Thanks 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    1.3 million working age people will lose PIP. 

    How many of these will also lose UC health components? 
    Does anyone know? 

    I’m set to lose 10K. 
    Got my UC Migration letter yesterday, so that’s another 3K I’m set to lose on top of that. 

    I am actually traumatised (I suffer with C-PTSD as well as physical stuff).  


    Also to search for his moral compass and backbone. 

    Apologies to those with spinal injuries. I meant it in the metaphorical sense. ✊. 

    Spiralling here, but clutching on. Look after yourselves everybody. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    What is benefits and works view on the survey about how claimants spend their pip? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    What will it mean if loads of MPs obtain on the vote don't understand that bit or what will happen if loads do .
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Lill
      The government is offering abstaining as as an option to its own MPs - apparently even to ministers - as a way of allowing them to avoid voting against the government, something for which they will threaten having the whip withdrawn (any minister voting against the government would certainly have to resign their ministerial post).

      The fact they're offering this at all indicates that a lot of MPs are worried about these cuts - some on moral grounds, others because they fear they could lose their seats over it.

      Let's be clear though - abstaining on this issue would be the cowards' way out. If a Labour MP abstains it's because they know the cuts are morally wrong but they don't have the guts to follow through and vote against it. They would thus be demonstrating that having the party whip withdrawn is more important to them than voting against legislation which would cause drastic harm to their own constituents if passed.
       
      It just means the government would be able to say that fewer of its own MPs actually voted against the government and the size of the rebellion would be smaller. Any Labour MP who abstains would be able to say that they didn't vote for the legislation, but again, that's a cowardly way of trying to justify a lack of backbone.

      Labour MPs really should wake up and recognise that the more of them vote against the cuts the less the government can do to them. if a huge number vote against the government then what exactly is the government going to do - take the whip away from all of them? Hardly. Individually, MPs can be picked off by the whips, but if they have the guts to stand together in numbers (I know, I won't hold my breath either) and not give in to threats from the whips there is really not much the government can do. In fact, if the rebellion were large enough then they'd be in danger of only being able to get it through with Tory votes and that would be so politically damaging it's the one thing (other than a successful legal challenge) which could kill the legislation stone dead.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @ANGELA It will still have to clear the Lords but yes, needs to be kicked out before that.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Lill This is where it is dangerous. The Bill will be passed if a MAJORITY of those VOTING support it. Abstaining is NOT helping the Bill to fail. It will just mean that the Bill passes with fewer votes. 

      Unless MPs vote AGAINST the Bill, the Bill will go through. 

      The Tory Party don’t think it goes far enough, so will probably support it. 
      Many in the Labour Party want a high paying political future, and will put this before disabled people. 

      Labour has a very large majority in Parliament. The only decent, and honourable thing is to vote AGAINST. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    Again surely there will be some sort of legal action taken? If the Supreme Court can made verdicts on other situations then surely they can do it with this?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    I have finally received my paperwork for my most recent review ( 8 months after the date it needed to be in for).
    This time l scored 14 in daily living, previously 16. Two fours were downgraded to 3s with just one remaining ( cooking and eating) the award is for seven years and I will be receiving state pension by then.
    It just showed me that they are changing 4s to 3s . However my needs haven’t changed.
    Luckily I held onto one but I reckon if they started to review mine early, that 4 will be magically changed to a 3.
    They also said they used information from my Universal Credit assessment. Strange that. I don’t receive it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @James @James that's a powerful one. Would alerting our couny council housing departmentss be the way to best publicise that?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 hours ago
    And now this:


    Please nobody answer the survey if you receive it.  Or better yet, write on it:

    'NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, I OPPOSE THE DISGUSTING WELFARE CUTS AND REFORM'

    Send that back to them!

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Mick Oh no, I answered the Scope one thinking it would help )-:
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 hours ago
      @Mick I'd ask them what they spend their expenses on. "That's none of your business!" they'll also no doubt say. Because it's different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

      Also, thanks for the free £10 voucher. lol
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 22 hours ago


    Seems some  libdems support cuts this is just some of the news report from yahoo news.


    THE Liberal Democrats have criticised the Labour group for not supporting their motion at the full council meeting in Warrington on Monday.

    The motion was on the Government’s recent Green Paper, proposing welfare payment changes amounting to £5 billion a year.

    At the full council meeting, the Labour group unanimously voted against the motion which called on the council leader to write to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to express the council’s ‘grave concerns’ about the impact of these changes and to urge for a ‘reverse’ of the ‘decision to target those with disabilities and health condition with cuts to their support payments’.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Lill I’m confused, it looks from what you’ve said here like the Lib Dems we’re challenging the govt’s proposals, not supporting them? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Lill Sorry, the quote I included didn't send properly but here you go:

      "Liberal Democrat Cllr Ian Marks, a former council leader, seconded the motion.

      He said: “We welcome attempts to get people back into work and recognise that the welfare system is a mess and needs sorting out.

      “However, we don’t like the way the Government has gone about these changes and they have handled the politics badly.

      “Coming on top of the winter fuel allowance cuts, Labour voters believe the Government has lost touch with ordinary people and the changes they promised at the election have not happened. A recent study predicts that the benefit cuts could cost Labour eighty seats at a General Election.

      “We agree that the public finances in the country are in a dire state but money should be raised by making the big banks, the technology and social media companies and on-line gaming firms pay a fair share from their huge profits, rather than penalising the disabled and those with health issues.”"
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Lill Sorry but I've read the full article and I can't seem to find where it indicates that "some Lib Dems support the cuts"? 

      It sounds to me like the Lib Dem councillors are upset that the Labour councillors in the Warrington council don't wish to raise any concerns with the higher ups in the government and have blocked a motion that Lib Dems proposed for them to do so, even though the Labour councillors are also reportedly as worried as they are.

      The article concludes with this.

      "

      He said: “We welcome attempts to get people back into work and recognise that the welfare system is a mess and needs sorting out.

      “However, we don’t like the way the Government has gone about these changes and they have handled the politics badly.

      “Coming on top of the winter fuel allowance cuts, Labour voters believe the Government has lost touch with ordinary people and the changes they promised at the election have not happened. A recent study predicts that the benefit cuts could cost Labour eighty seats at a General Election.

       
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    @James, re your investigation into the £6,000 limit:

    It only makes sense in the warped dwp parallel universe. It's the same when they calculate how much you'd get from a pension you haven't accessed - they put a notional figure on the non-existent annuity payments and deduct it from means tested benefits. Also, the £6,000 threshold is soooo longstanding it's nonsense. Trying to save for a car, for example, because the motability scheme doesn't suit everyone, you can't accumulate enough without losing some of what you've saved. They deduct according to their inflated figure and the real, much lower, figure is eroded by the deduction . Simples 🙄
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago


    "nothing that’s been sent to me has given me hard evidence of cases that are at risk of really losing out.”

    Wish we knew which that mp was - we could put them right! Refer them to a certain B&W survey maybe.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @tintack tintack Yep, head up his own backside.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 hours ago
      @SLB
      "thankfully, he might be educated during the Commons debate"

      Assuming whoever it is bothers to turn up. It sounds like someone who is determined not to see the evidence staring them in the face. "I see no ships...."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 hours ago
      @Frances Whoever it is will certainly be one of the right-wing Starmerite drones. I find it very hard to believe that they haven't had e-mails from constituents describing just how devastating the cuts will be if they go through. And given that the stated intention is to save billions of pounds - not that that will actually happen, as the savings made by cutting benefits will be vastly outweighed by the extra cost of NHS treatments that people will need because they've been made poorer and therefore sicker - how do they think that is going to happen without people losing out? Presumably they think the savings will be made by pushing sick and disabled people into all those jobs that don't exist and which they couldn't do even if they did exist.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Frances thankfully, he might be educated during the Commons debate.  But it's pretty sickening that there are MPs who can't be bothered to do their homework.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Frances "Nothing that’s been sent to me has given me hard evidence of cases that are at risk of really losing out.”

      Oh, that's extremely reassuring! They personally haven't seen or heard anybody worrying about these reforms so that means nothing bad is going to happen. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    From the Guardian:  "Ministers scramble to avoid Labour rebellion on disability benefit cuts
    Exclusive: backbenchers may be allowed to abstain, a major climbdown from previous votes when rebels were suspended from the party."

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Another news story, this time in the Mirror:
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    So you've got better than a 50/50 chance if you're just down and bluesy?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Keir Starmer and his clowns are scrambling to bribe revolting MPs against disability benefits cuts, offering them to abstain!

    "One Labour MP said: “When people abstained on the winter fuel vote, they were warned that it had been taken by the leadership as voting against the government. This time, however, a number of MPs have been offered the opportunity to abstain.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/17/ministers-avoid-labour-rebellion-disability-cuts
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Scorpion And many will, because they're wimps.  But I'm not sure that's enough to make the whole thing blow over.  Our best chance is to see Labour decimated at the council elections.  I've voted against Labour for the first time in my 33 years of voting.  I'm sure I'm not alone - and, thankfully, there are plenty of people upset with Labour for other reasons, too.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Follow up to my previous posting I have made an FOI request to the DWP through What do they know web site

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_does_435_return_per_month_ha

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @SLB I've sent two responses to Scope, one from me and one from my husband. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @SLB Brilliant, every mention in the news of the real impact is good, thanks for flagging these.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Slightly off topic but related to the so called 6,000 pound limit. 

    The DWP say that if someone has a savings of say 6,250 pounds then for the extra 250 pounds they say will regard it as an earning by you at 4.35 a month. I started to wondering this is in fact a return of 20.88 percent a year. If this is the case will it be possible to find out how someone can do this with their money and where such a good investment can be found because it does not make sense to me.

    I wondered if we able to investigate and find out how this can be done by an individual who is on benefits and may have 250 pounds which they will consider will earn 4.35 which is 52.5 pounds per year which I think you will agree is a very good return for anyone by any standards.

    Is there some way we could challenge this assertion ? because if they know of something the rest of us do not I would like to find out more !~

    As a person on benefit if I had such an amount to invest ie 250 pounds where can I find out where I can get a return of 4.25 while being on benefits because I simply do not know or understand how this can actually be achieved 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @James It's up to £6250 e.g,  if you have a pound more than £6000; then you will lose £4.35, as you are classed as having £6250. if you have a pound more than £6500; then you will lose £8.70 and so on.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Please do not vote for Reform. These people will be even worse than Labour on benefits.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Dez
      "I can't say "correct" to what you're saying enough."

      Thanks, but clearly someone doesn't like it. If the down voter would care to explain how Reform are actually terrific people with fantastic policies I'm sure we'd love to hear it. Don't be shy.....

      "If you can't explain where the money is going to come from for your policies and you cannot do so without storming off like a child, then you clearly have no leadership qualities to speak of."

      Apparently his prop pint proves that he's actually a salt of the earth man of the people type. Just like the fact he dug out his wellies to cosplay as a farmer at one of the recent protests proved that he's a friend of farmers despite the effects of Brexit. And you can't argue with that.*

      *You can, in fact, argue with that.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Anon Quite, voting Reform over Labour because you are unhappy with benefits cuts is like voting for the wolves party because you're unhappy the dogs party bit you.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 hours ago
      @tintack I can't say "correct" to what you're saying enough.

      Basically, all you need to do to score votes into today's climate is say you're going to come down on immigration and that's literally it. 

      Never mind that Farage threw a hissy fit and stormed off on Good Morning Britain when he was challenged on how his finances make no sense. 

      And I don't know if anybody has missed the memo but finances are kind of a big deal in politics right now. If you can't explain where the money is going to come from for your policies and you cannot do so without storming off like a child, then you clearly have no leadership qualities to speak of.

      But he says the magic words that are 'taking care of the boat people' and people stand up and cheer. And it'll be everybody's fault but their own when it blows up in their face.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Dez
      "I'm going to take a wild guess and say that I suppose people think that if we take care of immigration, that means more money will be reserved for the disabled and welfare benefits and... I'm sorry but just no. That's not how it's going to play out at all."

      Indeed. There is a well known cartoon easily found online which illustrates this. A right-wing lunatic says something like, "we have to stop immigrants coming here so we can look after our own people". Then a British person says to him, " I need help". To which he replies: "#@*! off".

      As for Reform, they are the most shameless grifters I have ever seen. Led by people who live lives of wealth and privilege and are in no danger of ever experiencing anything else, they masquerade as anti-establishment insurgents while supporting policies that entrench the wealth and power of that very same establishment while punching down on those at the bottom. They are the living embodiment of the establishment they claim to oppose. Same with Trump and his cronies in the US.

      Unfortunately a party like this is a gift for the billionaires who run most of our press. A party that claims to represent ordinary people while actually supporting the rich and powerful is exactly what they want. It ensures the supposed "change" option actualy means more of the same on steroids. Sadly Reform are seldom seriously challenged by most of the media and are given a far easier ride than they should be (on the very few occasions Farage has been put under even a run of the mill level of scrutiny that other parties get all the time he's fallen to pieces and thrown his toys out of his pram). They even have two channels, Talk TV and GBeebies, which are little more than Reform propaganda channels (funded by the sort of super-rich psychopaths whose interests Reform claims to be challenging, naturally).

      What makes this even more frustrating is that while Reform voters get steamed up about immigration, I've seen reports which show that on other subjects the polling evidence shows that they don't support Reform's policies at all (such as on public ownership of utilities, Farage's comments about replacing the NHS with a US-style insurance system, workers' rights, maybe even benefits to some extent as well). When they're told what Reform's policies are they really don't like them, but most of them remain blissfully unaware of what they're voting for.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Dez Each government department has its own specific budget.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact