UK: Government benefits cuts leave thousands of HIV patients struggling to afford basic nutrition

Because HIV suppresses the immune system, it is vital that patients are getting enough nutrition.


ccording to HIV experts, recent welfare reforms by the UK’s Coalition government have left thousands of HIV patients unable to afford the basic food they need to cope with their condition.

In an exclusive report by The Independent on Sunday, it emerged that the situation was now so critical, in some cases doctors were forced to prescribe food supplements to ensure that the patients’ medication would work.

David Asboe, chair of the British HIV Association and a consultant in HIV medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, said: “Before the past three or four years, I never saw people coming in and saying they didn’t have enough money for food. Now I’ve seen several people in my clinic where the fact that they’ve had a decrease in their income, related to benefit changes, means they can’t afford regular food.

“Sometimes I have to prescribe food supplements to help them. If this is one of the unintended consequences of benefit changes, I think it’s very important that it’s looked at.”

He added that because HIV “suppresses the immune system,” nutritional problems posed a serious threat to patients who weren’t getting enough food.

“About 70 to 80 per cent of all treatments for HIV have to be taken with a meal. That’s critical to the success of these treatments, and they have to be taken regularly and on time. Taking [medication] with food optimises the absorption and has an impact on effectiveness. There’s one treatment that has to be taken with a 400-calorie meal; there is evidence that, if you take it on an empty stomach, that compromises the treatment.”

The numbers of patients saying they needed emergence grants from the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) because of benefit cuts jumped by 63 per cent between 2012 and 2013. There was also an overall 15 per cent rise in applications.

Of the 2,179 people given an emergency grant of £250 by THT last year, 919 were on benefits. Just under half of all those given help needed it specifically because they could not afford food.

Figures released in November last year by Public Health England showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high.

Pamela Nash MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and Aids, said: “These findings are truly alarming, and hopefully will send shockwaves through Whitehall. I find it deeply saddening that those with HIV in our country are not only having to deal with their condition, but now have the added burden of worrying about their finances.”

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who is also a member of the HIV parliamentary group, said: “People with HIV often have to deal with a range of physical, emotional and social problems. It’s absolutely wrong that, on top of that, so many are also being forced into poverty by the coalition’s heartless austerity agenda.”

THT’s chief executive Paul Ward added: “What we’ve seen is that progressively more people have had their cases reviewed and, as a consequence, are no longer entitled to benefits at all. For many people with HIV, this isn’t a question of not having enough money to go to the cinema or buy some clothes. It means they have not got enough money to eat properly. For those who are very unwell, it means they struggle to make appointments simply because they don’t have money for the bus fare.

“The numbers in this report should act as a warning sign at all levels of government that people with HIV are not receiving the level of support needed to meet the most basic of costs. In an age when highly effective treatments mean that people with HIV can live long and healthy lives, it is nothing short of a disgrace that HIV and poverty should still so often go hand in hand.”

Earlier this month, THT said an extra 250,000 HIV tests a year could slash new infection rates.

Last month, in an exclusive interview with PinkNews.co.uk at a THT reception, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the time had come for the UK’s political leaders to redouble their efforts in tackling the HIV epidemic among gay and bisexual men.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/23/uk-government-cuts-sickness-benefits-condemned-truly-alarming-thousands-hiv-patients-go-hungry/

This government is killing people.
    

i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses... it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Didn't God smoke pot?

There are other medications which have to be taken with food. It's a bit of a pain really. Either that or they have to be taken on an empty stomach.

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

no they get £10 per week extra...  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

More nonsense.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

no they get £10 per week extra...  

Do you have a source that proves that?

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

no they get £10 per week extra...  

For being drug addicts?, do you have a credible link Favva?

There seems to be an assumption that everyone with HIV are relying on benefits. I used to know someone who was HIV positive and he worked. I think he got benefits on top of his salary.

This government must be breaking some kind of international law or something, in failing to provide the basics like this.

Catman wrote:This government must be breaking some kind of international law or something, in failing to provide the basics like this.

Why? As I said, lots of medications need to be taken with food.

Raggamuffin wrote:There seems to be an assumption that everyone with HIV are relying on benefits. I used to know someone who was HIV positive and he worked. I think he got benefits on top of his salary.

The side effects to the drugs make it impossible to work, and the illness gets worse over time.
Very stupid to suggest that people with this illness should be made to work.    

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:This government must be breaking some kind of international law or something, in failing to provide the basics like this.

Why? As I said, lots of medications need to be taken with food.

Because the government is cutting the benefits of people with HIV, meaning that they are unable to afford nutrition, it's in the article if you could be bothered to read it.   

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? As I said, lots of medications need to be taken with food.

Because the government is cutting the benefits of people with HIV, meaning that they are unable to afford nutrition, it's in the article if you could be bothered to read it.   

They're only cutting benefits for people with HIV and nobody else?

Like I said, not all people with HIV rely on benefits.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

Because the government is cutting the benefits of people with HIV, meaning that they are unable to afford nutrition, it's in the article if you could be bothered to read it.   

They're only cutting benefits for people with HIV and nobody else?

Like I said, not all people with HIV rely on benefits.

They shouldn't be cutting the benefits of anyone with a terminal illness, where they need the extra money to maintain a nutrition diet.
The vast majority of people living with HIV are too ill to work, the illness gets worse from diagnosis onwards, you wouldn't know what you're talking about because you have no experience of the illness.

Apart from that being a bad state of affairs the one line that leapt out at me was this:

"Figures released in November last year by Public Health England showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high."


How can this be???? Surely to God people are wearing condoms? Are they stupid? Are people still having unprotected sex??   

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're only cutting benefits for people with HIV and nobody else?

Like I said, not all people with HIV rely on benefits.

They shouldn't be cutting the benefits of anyone with a terminal illness, where they need the extra money to maintain a nutrition diet.
The vast majority of people living with HIV are too ill to work, the illness gets worse from diagnosis onwards, you wouldn't know what you're talking about because you have no experience of the illness.

I know someone who does - I just told you, he was working.

The article is from Pink News, but don't forget this isn't a "gay issue".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

They shouldn't be cutting the benefits of anyone with a terminal illness, where they need the extra money to maintain a nutrition diet.
The vast majority of people living with HIV are too ill to work, the illness gets worse from diagnosis onwards, you wouldn't know what you're talking about because you have no experience of the illness.

I know someone who does - I just told you, he was working.

The article is from Pink News, but don't forget this isn't a "gay issue".

The article appeared in the telegraph, i think, then it was picked up by Pink News, it effects gay people so they printed the story.
  

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know someone who does - I just told you, he was working.

The article is from Pink News, but don't forget this isn't a "gay issue".

The article appeared in the telegraph, i think, then it was picked up by Pink News, it effects gay people so they printed the story.
  

Perhaps you should have used the Telegraph article then.

Anyway, lots of people on benefits have to take medication with food, so what about them? Can they afford more food than those with HIV?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

The article appeared in the telegraph, i think, then it was picked up by Pink News, it effects gay people so they printed the story.
  

Perhaps you should have used the Telegraph article then.

Anyway, lots of people on benefits have to take medication with food, so what about them? Can they afford more food than those with HIV?

I'll post from any publication that i see fit thanks.
If you read back i said the the benefits of anyone with an illness, shouldn't be cut, when the extra money is needed to maintain a nutrition diet, you are just being difficult for the sake of it i think.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you should have used the Telegraph article then.

Anyway, lots of people on benefits have to take medication with food, so what about them? Can they afford more food than those with HIV?

I'll post from any publication that i see fit thanks.
If you read back i said the the benefits of anyone with an illness, shouldn't be cut, when the extra money is needed to maintain a nutrition diet, you are just being difficult for the sake of it i think.

Using Pink News just implies that it's a gay issue when it's not.

Does a nutritious diet actually make that much difference to the progression of HIV? Have there been studies on it?

Again can someone show me where the Government is failing to provide adequate money to afford adequate nutrition?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

I'll post from any publication that i see fit thanks.
If you read back i said the the benefits of anyone with an illness, shouldn't be cut, when the extra money is needed to maintain a nutrition diet, you are just being difficult for the sake of it i think.

Using Pink News just implies that it's a gay issue when it's not.

Does a nutritious diet actually make that much difference to the progression of HIV? Have there been studies on it?

They have a poor immune system so it is vital that they eat a nutrition based diet, the drugs don't work if they don't eat with them, many are being found fit for work when they aren't and it would be impossible to maintain a nutrition diet on £70 a week.

sphinx wrote:Again can someone show me where the Government is failing to provide adequate money to afford adequate nutrition?

The authors of the report know much better than you and your twisted RW lies.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:i would imagine it is the same for very many other people with illnesses...  it makes you wonder why alcoholics and druggies get extra benefits to feed their habit.

Do they really get more money if they have addictions to pay for, or is that more nonsense?

They used to get mobility component of DLA - doubt they still do

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Using Pink News just implies that it's a gay issue when it's not.

Does a nutritious diet actually make that much difference to the progression of HIV? Have there been studies on it?

They have a poor immune system so it is vital that they eat a nutrition based diet, the drugs don't work if they don't eat with them, many are being found fit for work when they aren't and it would be impossible to maintain a nutrition diet on £70 a week.

It's not impossible if they budget wisely.

Does what they eat have any effect on the progression of the virus? That's the question.

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no they get £10 per week extra...  

For being drug addicts?, do you have a credible link Favva?

i'm trying to find a source, I knew someone who was it receipt of the extra money, i think it was part of the disability living allowance..  

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Using Pink News just implies that it's a gay issue when it's not.

Does a nutritious diet actually make that much difference to the progression of HIV? Have there been studies on it?

They have a poor immune system so it is vital that they eat a nutrition based diet, the drugs don't work if they don't eat with them, many are being found fit for work when they aren't and it would be impossible to maintain a nutrition diet on £70 a week.

Do HIV cases need some sort of special diet or is an ordinary nutritious diet that is recommended for everyone enough? I ask because and ordianary nutritious diet is more than possible on £70 a week.

Also why should someone with HIV as opposed to AIDS be considered unable to work?

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

They have a poor immune system so it is vital that they eat a nutrition based diet, the drugs don't work if they don't eat with them, many are being found fit for work when they aren't and it would be impossible to maintain a nutrition diet on £70 a week.

Do HIV cases need some sort of special diet or is an ordinary nutritious diet that is recommended for everyone enough?  I ask because and ordianary nutritious diet is more than possible on £70 a week.

Also why should someone with HIV  as opposed to AIDS be considered unable to work?

I think there needs to be more information about these people the article is talking about and what their state of health is. Those with HIV don't necessarily have problems working or living, and they can be fine for years.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do HIV cases need some sort of special diet or is an ordinary nutritious diet that is recommended for everyone enough?  I ask because and ordianary nutritious diet is more than possible on £70 a week.

Also why should someone with HIV  as opposed to AIDS be considered unable to work?

I think there needs to be more information about these people the article is talking about and what their state of health is. Those with HIV don't necessarily have problems working or living, and they can be fine for years.

I know this - I lost a good friend to AIDS back in the 1990s. I am trying to get catman to explain his thinking.

the govt. have a finite amount of money, they are quite obviously looking to maximise its usefulness, what ever they cut someone will be unhappy...

eddie wrote:Apart from that being a bad state of affairs the one line that leapt out at me was this:

"Figures released in November last year by Public Health England showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high."


How can this be???? Surely to God people are wearing condoms? Are they stupid? Are people still having unprotected sex??   

It shouldn't be the case. But there is still a lot of arrogance among many who think 'it wont happen to me' or take a persons word as truth no matter what. Tbh if you trust someone you are having casual sex with you are asking for trouble.

As to the OP. If someone is actually debilitated by HIV they should get benefits- though there should be enough awareness thesedays that it doesn't not spread further- people do need to be more responsible.

It is a tough subject really, if you wanted to be nasty you could say why are the country expected to support someone for years because they contract a debilitating illness through stupidity, you could ask what job could they do that would not risk their life or that of others..

heavenly father wrote:It is a tough subject really, if you wanted to be nasty you could say why are the country expected to support someone for years because they contract a debilitating illness through stupidity, you could ask what job could they do that would not risk their life or that of others..

The system already works on what jobs could be done - it does not stop to assess whether those jobs are available or accessible - however that is getting away from the point in the OP - the claim that the government is causing people with HIV to develop nutrition problems.

I ask again where is the evidence that the government is not providing adequate money.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:It is a tough subject really, if you wanted to be nasty you could say why are the country expected to support someone for years because they contract a debilitating illness through stupidity, you could ask what job could they do that would not risk their life or that of others..

The system already works on what jobs could be done - it does not stop to assess whether those jobs are available or accessible - however that is getting away from the point in the OP - the claim that the government is causing people with HIV to develop nutrition problems.

I ask again where is the evidence that the government is not providing adequate money.

well the job problem you quoted is the same for all jobless people..if they are getting unemployment or disability surely it is up to them to make a nutritional meal, just the same as anyone else..

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The system already works on what jobs could be done - it does not stop to assess whether those jobs are available or accessible - however that is getting away from the point in the OP - the claim that the government is causing people with HIV to develop nutrition problems.

I ask again where is the evidence that the government is not providing adequate money.

well the job problem you quoted is the same for all jobless people..if they are getting unemployment or disability surely it is up to them to make a nutritional meal, just the same  as anyone else..

Yes but catman is implying the government does not provide enough money for them to do this.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

well the job problem you quoted is the same for all jobless people..if they are getting unemployment or disability surely it is up to them to make a nutritional meal, just the same  as anyone else..

Yes but catman is implying the government does not provide enough money for them to do this.

I'm sure many feel the same, tough, in an ideal world when money is no object give them as much as they want but in the real world we live in they have to make the best meals they can afford like all the rest...sadly..

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Apart from that being a bad state of affairs the one line that leapt out at me was this:

"Figures released in November last year by Public Health England showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high."


How can this be???? Surely to God people are wearing condoms? Are they stupid? Are people still having unprotected sex??   

It shouldn't be the case. But there is still a lot of arrogance among many who think 'it wont happen to me' or take a persons word as truth no matter what. Tbh if you trust someone you are having casual sex with you are asking for trouble.

As to the OP. If someone is actually debilitated by HIV they should get benefits- though there should be enough awareness thesedays that it doesn't not spread further- people do need to be more responsible.

That's what I thought les, are people still stupid enough to think everyone has been tested or that they will tell the truth? It's total stupidity! Not just for gay people and HIV but any STD no matter your sexuality!

Also I think I'm a tad confused; how are HIV sufferers getting less benefits and not able to buy enough adequate food? I get that they need a healthy diet - don't we all! - but how is their money different to any other person receiving sick benefit?

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

It shouldn't be the case. But there is still a lot of arrogance among many who think 'it wont happen to me' or take a persons word as truth no matter what. Tbh if you trust someone you are having casual sex with you are asking for trouble.

As to the OP. If someone is actually debilitated by HIV they should get benefits- though there should be enough awareness thesedays that it doesn't not spread further- people do need to be more responsible.

That's what I thought les, are people still stupid enough to think everyone has been tested or that they will tell the truth? It's total stupidity! Not just for gay people and HIV but any STD no matter your sexuality!

Also I think I'm a tad confused; how are HIV sufferers getting less benefits and not able to buy enough adequate food? I get that they need a healthy diet - don't we all! - but how is their money different to any other person receiving sick benefit?

I agree with your first part eds; for the second I don't know, perhaps phil can enlighten us there...

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

It shouldn't be the case. But there is still a lot of arrogance among many who think 'it wont happen to me' or take a persons word as truth no matter what. Tbh if you trust someone you are having casual sex with you are asking for trouble.

As to the OP. If someone is actually debilitated by HIV they should get benefits- though there should be enough awareness thesedays that it doesn't not spread further- people do need to be more responsible.

That's what I thought les, are people still stupid enough to think everyone has been tested or that they will tell the truth? It's total stupidity! Not just for gay people and HIV but any STD no matter your sexuality!

Also I think I'm a tad confused; how are HIV sufferers getting less benefits and not able to buy enough adequate food? I get that they need a healthy diet - don't we all! - but how is their money different to any other person receiving sick benefit?

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

Catman wrote:

eddie wrote:

That's what I thought les, are people still stupid enough to think everyone has been tested or that they will tell the truth? It's total stupidity! Not just for gay people and HIV but any STD no matter your sexuality!

Also I think I'm a tad confused; how are HIV sufferers getting less benefits and not able to buy enough adequate food? I get that they need a healthy diet - don't we all! - but how is their money different to any other person receiving sick benefit?

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

Could you elaborate as that means nothing to me?

Catman wrote:

eddie wrote:

That's what I thought les, are people still stupid enough to think everyone has been tested or that they will tell the truth? It's total stupidity! Not just for gay people and HIV but any STD no matter your sexuality!

Also I think I'm a tad confused; how are HIV sufferers getting less benefits and not able to buy enough adequate food? I get that they need a healthy diet - don't we all! - but how is their money different to any other person receiving sick benefit?

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free. The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week. Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

Could you elaborate as that means nothing to me?

Support group means that they are too ill to attend regular appointments, and look for work at the job centre.
They get moved onto the work related activity group, that is paid at a lower rate, and they have to attend the job centre etc.
ATOS, has been moving HIV patients off the support group, when there is no change in their condition.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

Could you elaborate as that means nothing to me?

When you are signed off sick you get 13 weeks assessment phase when you get the same money as JSA then if you are still sick you are sent for the WCA and if found by that to be unable to work you will be assigned to either the support group for those so sick and unlikely to get better that work is out of the question and will get somewhere between £100 and £106 or the Work Related Activity group if it is considered you may still be able to do limited work or will at some point in the future be able to and you will get £94 -£100 a week.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free.  The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week.  Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

As I understand it, getting these disability benefits doesn't depend on the name of the condition you have, it generally depends on how that condition affects you. I read somewhere that some conditions automatically entitle someone to these benefits, and I presume that's regardless of whether the person is actually incapable of work or not. I don't think HIV is one of them though.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you elaborate as that means nothing to me?

Support group means that they are too ill to attend regular appointments, and look for work at the job centre.
They get moved onto the work related activity group, that is paid at a lower rate, and they have to attend the job centre etc.
ATOS, has been moving HIV patients off the support group, when there is no change in their condition.

That is attending somewhere between once a month and once every 3 months - and there is no reason why someone symptom free should not be in that group if they get ESA at all.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Once HIV patients are moved out of the support group, by ATOS, they have their money cut by £100 PCM.

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free.  The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week.  Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

You can be HIV, symptomatic, which is what Doug is and too ill to attend job centre, is condition isn't ever going to improve.
The point of the article was to demonstrate that people with HIV need to maintain a healthy diet, they need to eat with their drugs, you can't do that on £70, for those that are symptom free.
Sassy, i and others have gone over the issues, you just keep on repeating yourself, with assumptions etc, you aren't worth the effort, and it's boring to keep going around in circles with your RW cap doffing shit tbf.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free.  The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week.  Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

As I understand it, getting these disability benefits doesn't depend on the name of the condition you have, it generally depends on how that condition affects you. I read somewhere that some conditions automatically entitle someone to these benefits, and I presume that's regardless of whether the person is actually incapable of work or not. I don't think HIV is one of them though.

Not quite - it is all a bit confused between the old Incapacity, and ESA and the extra disability benefits old Disability Living Allowance and new Personal Independence Payments.

Incapacity/ESA are cost of living benefits and means tested dependent on ability to work (a definition that does change) where as DLA/PIP are top up disability benefits dependent on affect of condition on overall living regardless of working ability or engagement. DLA was not means tested, PIP is to a point.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you elaborate as that means nothing to me?

When you are signed off sick you get 13 weeks assessment phase when you get the same money as JSA then if you are still sick you are sent for the WCA and if found by that to be unable to work you will be assigned to either the support group for those so sick and unlikely to get better that work is out of the question and will get somewhere between £100 and £106 or the Work Related Activity group if it is considered you may still be able to do limited work or will at some point in the future be able to and you will get £94 -£100 a week.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

So if they're in a work related group, they get about £6 a week less?