I think it might have been better to have had three groups: economic, health/practical, wellbeing. Economic - care, work, volunteer, train Health/practical - treatments, home help, aids, taxis, utilities etc Wellbeing - religion/community, pets, hobbies, nature, social, self-care

I'm not seeing a particularly close overlap between RF's five 'wellbeing-enhancing activities' and NHS Five Steps. So how were RF's five chosen? I'd like to see an option for family life/community/religion. What else do you think is missing from their list?

When I think about what I need in order to socialise, then I need mobility aids, taxis, an assistance dog, small aids/braces. Ditto for hobbies. But these also come under 'live more independently'. Treating these as separate issues doesn't work for my kind of illness.

Then where's the problem? PIP is doing what it was designed to do, in recognition that it needed to do this. And yet somehow we should also criticise PIP for being better than DLA at giving support to people whose needs were under-recognised by DLA.

Improvements I'd like: - PIP DL activities expanded; - consideration for things like higher utilities, clothing, dietary costs; - a new level inserted above the current Enhanced rate; - a mechanism for considering how engaging in Activity A impacts on the ability to do Activity B

"Conditions are not a good proxy for disabled people’s needs or the additional costs they face." (Albeit where someone has a severe, static disability, e.g. severe visual impairment and no other illness or impairment, there may be some scope for a simplified assessment).

"Moving to a...disability benefit assessment that measure people’s actual spending would likely mean that the sort of large expenditures that could make a big difference to disabled people’s lives... would be underrepresented, while small everyday costs would be overrepresented."