Around one in six people receiving Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in England and Wales could lose some or all of their financial support under potential reforms to the UK’s disability benefits system, according to research by the Resolution Foundation. The think tank estimates that changes targeting claimants who report no additional costs associated with their disability could reduce government spending, while raising questions about how future support should be assessed and delivered.
The findings come as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reviews how PIP works, including eligibility criteria, assessments, and the support available to people living with long-term health conditions or disabilities. The review, led by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms, is intended to address concerns about the current system and its long-term sustainability.
However, the proposed changes remain part of a wider policy debate rather than a confirmed decision to cut payments for one in six claimants. Disability charities have warned that reported additional costs do not always capture the full financial impact of living with a disability. For claimants, the outcome of the review could influence how their needs are assessed and what forms of support they receive in the future.
Review
The DWP’s review of Personal Independence Payment comes amid growing attention to the cost and administration of disability benefits in the UK.
PIP is designed to help eligible people meet additional costs associated with a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability. Unlike some benefits, entitlement is not generally determined by whether someone is working or by their household income. Instead, the assessment considers how their condition affects everyday activities and mobility.
The government has acknowledged concerns about whether the current system adequately reflects the needs of people with disabilities. Sir Stephen Timms has been leading a review intended to examine how the benefit operates and identify possible improvements.
The Resolution Foundation has published its own research ahead of the review’s final recommendations. Its findings suggest that the system could be redesigned to distinguish more clearly between people facing regular additional costs, those requiring occasional financial assistance, and those whose reported limitations do not correspond to additional expenses.
These findings are likely to contribute to the wider discussion about how disability support should be targeted. However, the research does not mean that the government has decided to remove payments from a specific group of existing claimants.
Readers can find official information about eligibility and applications on the GOV.UK PIP guidance page.
Findings
The Resolution Foundation’s research examined whether claimants’ reported limitations corresponded with the additional costs they experienced because of their disabilities.
The study involved Savanta surveying 2,611 PIP recipients aged between 16 and 64 in England and Wales during May and June. According to the supplied report, the findings suggested that approximately 16% of respondents reported no additional costs associated with their disability.
Within that group, 12% of all surveyed recipients reported no additional costs alongside relatively low levels of limitation. Another 4% reported no additional costs despite experiencing higher levels of limitation.
The distinction is important because the research does not suggest that everyone reporting no additional costs has no disability or does not require support. Rather, it raises questions about whether the existing payment system consistently directs assistance towards the costs and practical difficulties claimants experience.
The Resolution Foundation estimated that changing payments for people in these categories could potentially save around £4.4 billion. The figure is an estimate associated with the proposed approach, not a confirmed government saving or an announced reduction in the benefits budget.
The findings also highlight a broader challenge for policymakers: designing a system that recognises the different ways disabilities affect people’s lives while ensuring that financial support reaches those who need it.
Eligibility
Under the current PIP system, eligibility is assessed according to how a person’s condition affects specific daily living activities and mobility. A diagnosis alone does not automatically determine the amount awarded.
Assessors consider the difficulties a claimant experiences with activities such as preparing food, washing, dressing, communicating, and managing everyday tasks. Mobility assessments consider relevant difficulties with planning or following journeys and moving around.
The award depends on the assessment outcome and the points assigned to the relevant activities. Eligible claimants may receive a daily living component, a mobility component, or both.
The Resolution Foundation’s proposals suggest that future assessments could place greater emphasis on the additional costs people experience and the type of support that would help them participate in everyday life.
However, measuring additional costs can be complicated. A claimant may not have purchased a particular aid because they cannot afford it, even though they need it. Another person may receive equipment through a public service or family support, meaning the cost does not appear in their personal spending.
Similarly, a person with a fluctuating condition may experience substantial difficulties during certain periods but report lower costs at other times.
Any revised assessment system would therefore need to consider more than a simple record of current spending if it is to reflect the range of circumstances experienced by disabled people.
Youngclaimants
Younger PIP recipients could be particularly affected by proposals based on reported limitations and additional costs.
According to the supplied research, approximately 21% of claimants aged 16 to 24 reported relatively low limitations and no additional disability-related costs.
The Resolution Foundation’s findings suggest that a revised system could change eligibility or payment levels for some people within this age group.
However, the figures do not establish that every young claimant reporting low limitations would lose their benefit. Any actual change would depend on the rules ultimately adopted by the government and how individual cases were assessed.
Younger people with disabilities may face costs that differ from those experienced by older claimants. They may need support with education, transport, entering employment, developing independent living skills, or participating in social activities.
Some costs may also emerge over time as a person’s circumstances change. For example, someone moving away from the family home may need additional equipment or transport assistance that was not previously required.
For this reason, disability organisations argue that assessments should account for changing needs and the long-term effects of a condition rather than relying exclusively on a snapshot of current expenditure.
Payments
PIP payment amounts depend on the claimant’s assessment and the components awarded. The supplied report lists weekly payments ranging from £30.30 to £194.60, depending on the level of support received.
The following table summarises the reported range.
| Payment measure | Weekly amount |
|---|---|
| Lowest reported award | £30.30 |
| Highest reported award | £194.60 |
These figures reflect the payment rates stated in the supplied article and should be checked against current official rates before publication or used for an individual entitlement calculation.
The potential reforms could affect both the amount of financial support available and the way support is delivered. The Resolution Foundation has suggested that people who face particular one-off costs may be better supported through targeted payments rather than ongoing awards in some circumstances.
For example, a person who needs a mobility aid or a specific home adaptation may face a substantial initial expense. A one-off payment could help cover that purchase without necessarily creating an ongoing payment for the same expense.
However, not all disability-related costs are occasional. Energy consumption, transport, specialist food, equipment maintenance, and assistance with everyday activities can create recurring expenses. For these claimants, regular financial support may remain important.
The policy challenge is to distinguish between temporary expenses and ongoing needs without leaving people unable to afford essential support.
Spending
The rising cost of PIP has become a central part of the debate over reform.
According to DWP figures cited in the supplied report, spending on PIP was approximately £16.3 billion in 2019-20 when adjusted for inflation to current prices. By 2024-25, expenditure had increased to £27.3 billion.
The report states that spending is forecast to reach £41.5 billion by 2030-31. These figures indicate why policymakers are examining whether the benefit’s design, assessment process, and eligibility arrangements remain appropriate.
Several factors can influence spending, including changes in the number of people claiming the benefit, award levels, demographic trends, and the prevalence of reported health conditions.
The number of people entitled to PIP also increased, according to the figures supplied. There were 4.09 million entitled claimants in July, compared with 3.83 million a year earlier, representing an increase of approximately 7%.
Rising expenditure does not by itself establish that payments are unnecessary or that claimants are receiving more support than they need. It does, however, place greater emphasis on evaluating how effectively the system responds to people’s needs and how the government can finance it over the long term.
Official statistics and policy updates are available through the DWP’s disability benefits information on GOV.UK.
Concerns
Disability charities have questioned whether the Resolution Foundation’s approach fully reflects the experiences of people with learning disabilities and other long-term conditions.
Mencap, a charity supporting people with learning disabilities, said the survey findings were inconsistent with its own research and understanding of the additional costs faced by people with learning disabilities and their families.
Its chief executive, Jon Sparkes, emphasised that learning disabilities are lifelong and that the additional expenses associated with them do not simply disappear.
Such costs can include energy bills, transport to appointments, sensory aids, specialist equipment, and opportunities to participate in community life. Some expenses may be difficult to identify through a survey that asks whether a claimant currently experiences additional costs.
The concerns highlight a key question for the review: how can the government distinguish between people who genuinely have limited additional costs and those whose needs are not fully reflected in their reported spending?
Claimants may have unmet needs because of financial constraints. Others may receive informal support from relatives or rely on borrowed equipment. Neither circumstance necessarily means that future costs will be absent.
A revised system would need to account for these differences if changes are intended to improve targeting without undermining the independence and wellbeing of disabled people.
Proposals
The review has considered several possible changes beyond the way eligibility is assessed.
According to the supplied report, draft recommendations include replacing some cash awards with services or other forms of non-cash support, while retaining cash payments as a central part of PIP.
Other proposals include reducing unnecessary reassessments for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions. This could help limit the administrative burden and uncertainty faced by people whose conditions are unlikely to improve.
The review has also considered the rules under which PIP payments can be suspended when a claimant spends more than 28 consecutive days in hospital. Changes to these rules could reduce disruption for people receiving treatment.
Additional recommendations include increasing the availability of face-to-face assessments while expanding digital services for claimants.
The effectiveness of these changes would depend on how they are implemented. Digital services may make routine interactions easier for some people, while others may need accessible formats, additional assistance, or face-to-face support.
More frequent but lower-stakes reviews have also been suggested as a way to better understand fluctuating conditions without placing claimants under the same pressure as infrequent, high-stakes assessments.
Outlook
The outcome of the Timms Review could shape the future of disability benefits in England and Wales, but the potential changes should not be confused with confirmed eligibility rules.
The Resolution Foundation’s research presents one approach to addressing concerns about spending and targeting. Disability charities, meanwhile, have emphasised the importance of recognising ongoing costs, unmet needs, and the practical support required for independent living.
For existing claimants, the most important distinction is that the research does not itself change their entitlement. Any changes to eligibility, assessment procedures, or payment arrangements would depend on government decisions and the rules introduced following the review.
Until official changes are announced, claimants should continue following the existing guidance and respond to any DWP requests concerning their individual circumstances. They should also consult official sources rather than assume that their payments will automatically be reduced because they belong to a particular age group or have reported limited additional costs.
The debate ultimately concerns how the disability benefits system can provide appropriate support while remaining financially sustainable. A workable approach will need to consider both the costs of the programme and the varied, sometimes fluctuating needs of the people who depend on it.
