The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been urged to consider introducing one-off payments for some people receiving Personal Independence Payment (PIP), as the UK government reviews how disability benefits are assessed and delivered. The proposal, put forward by the Resolution Foundation, suggests that people who face specific, occasional disability-related expenses could receive targeted financial support rather than ongoing payments in some circumstances.
The recommendation forms part of a wider debate about the effectiveness and affordability of the UK’s disability benefits system. PIP is designed to help eligible people manage the additional costs associated with long-term health conditions and disabilities. However, the Resolution Foundation argues that the current system could do more to distinguish between recurring daily expenses and costs that arise only occasionally.
The think tank’s research has also raised questions about whether the existing assessment process consistently reflects claimants’ needs. Its findings suggest that some recipients report having no additional costs associated with their conditions, although disability charities have warned that reported spending does not always capture the full financial impact of living with a disability.
For claimants, the proposals could eventually influence how financial assistance is allocated. However, one-off payments remain a recommendation for consideration, not a confirmed replacement for regular PIP benefits.
Proposal
The Resolution Foundation has recommended that the DWP consider using one-off payments for certain disability-related expenses instead of providing ongoing payments in every case.
The idea is based on the distinction between recurring costs and specific expenses. Some people with disabilities may regularly spend additional money on transport, energy, specialist food, or assistance with everyday activities. Others may face a substantial expense when purchasing mobility equipment or adapting their homes.
Under the think tank’s suggested approach, people who need financial assistance for a particular purchase or adaptation could potentially receive a targeted payment to meet that expense. Regular cash awards would remain important for people who face continuing additional costs.
The proposal does not mean that all PIP recipients would move to one-off payments. Instead, it suggests that the form of support could be better matched to the type of expense a claimant experiences.
Such a system would require clear criteria for determining which costs qualify, how much support should be available, and whether claimants could access further assistance when their circumstances change.
The final design would also need to consider people whose conditions fluctuate or whose needs increase over time. Without appropriate safeguards, a payment intended to cover an occasional expense could leave some people struggling with costs that recur more frequently than expected.
Research
The Resolution Foundation’s recommendations draw on research conducted by Savanta, which surveyed 2,611 PIP recipients aged between 16 and 64 in England and Wales during May and June.
According to the findings described in the supplied report, 16% of surveyed recipients said they did not face additional costs because of their condition. Within this group, 12% reported relatively low levels of limitation, while 4% reported no additional costs despite having higher levels of limitation.
The think tank argues that these findings raise questions about whether ongoing payments are appropriately targeted in every case. It estimates that around £4.4 billion could potentially be saved if payments were reduced or stopped for some recipients based on their reported limitations and additional costs.
However, these figures represent the organisation’s analysis and proposed approach, rather than an announced government savings target or a confirmed reduction in the PIP budget.
There is also an important distinction between reporting no additional costs and having no disability-related needs. Some people may not be able to afford equipment they need, while others may rely on family members, borrowed aids, or services provided by public organisations.
A survey response about current spending may therefore not fully capture the support a person needs to live independently. Any future assessment changes would need to take these circumstances into account.
One-Off
The research also examined the types of expenses reported by people who said they faced higher additional costs because of their disabilities.
According to the supplied figures, 30% of those reporting higher costs identified expenses associated with appliances or equipment, including mobility aids. More than one-fifth, or 22%, reported needing one-off adaptations to their homes or vehicles.
These findings help explain why the Resolution Foundation has suggested that a combination of payment types could be considered.
For example, a person who needs a wheelchair-accessible modification to a vehicle may face a substantial initial cost. A one-off grant could help pay for that adaptation, provided the eligibility criteria and payment amount were appropriate.
By contrast, someone who regularly pays more for electricity because of disability-related needs may require continuing financial assistance. The same could apply to recurring transport expenses, specialist supplies, or other costs associated with daily living.
A mixed approach could, in principle, distinguish between these different situations. However, its effectiveness would depend on how quickly people could obtain support, whether payment amounts reflected actual costs, and what happened when additional expenses arose unexpectedly.
A system that is difficult to navigate or slow to approve essential purchases could create further problems for claimants. The details of any proposal would therefore be just as important as the principle of targeting payments more closely.
Assessments
The Resolution Foundation has also called for changes to the way PIP assessments gather information about claimants’ needs.
Its recommendations include asking people more directly about the additional costs they experience and the support that would help them participate more fully in society.
The think tank has also suggested more frequent but lower-stakes check-ins. These could help officials know how a person’s circumstances change over time without relying exclusively on infrequent assessments that may carry significant consequences for their benefits.
This approach could be particularly relevant to people with fluctuating conditions. Some health problems vary in severity from week to week, while others may gradually worsen or improve. A single assessment may not always capture the practical effects of those changes.
More regular contact could potentially provide a clearer picture of changing needs, but it would also need to avoid creating unnecessary administrative burdens. Claimants with lifelong or degenerative conditions may not benefit from repeatedly completing detailed assessments when their circumstances are unlikely to change significantly.
The challenge for the DWP will be to balance accurate assessments with a process that is accessible, proportionate, and responsive to individual circumstances.
Official information about the current benefit and its assessment process is available through the GOV.UK Personal Independence Payment guidance.
Spending
The potential reforms come as government spending on PIP has increased substantially in recent years.
According to DWP figures cited in the supplied report, PIP expenditure stood at £16.3 billion in 2019-20 when adjusted for inflation to today’s prices. By 2024-25, spending had risen to £27.3 billion.
The report states that expenditure is forecast to reach £41.5 billion by 2030-31. These figures have contributed to the wider discussion about whether the benefit system can remain financially sustainable while providing adequate support to eligible people.
The number of people entitled to receive PIP has also increased. The supplied figures show that 4.09 million people were entitled to the benefit as of July 31, 2026, compared with 3.83 million a year earlier.
That represents an increase of approximately 262,000 people, or around 7%. The total is also roughly double the 2.05 million claimants recorded in January 2019, when comparable figures began.
Several factors can influence benefit expenditure, including the number of eligible recipients, payment rates, changes in health conditions, and demographic trends. An increase in spending does not by itself demonstrate that payments are unnecessary or that claimants are receiving more support than they need.
The policy question is how the government can manage expenditure while ensuring that people who face substantial additional costs continue to receive appropriate assistance.
Readers can consult the Department for Work and Pensions on GOV.UK for official announcements, statistics, and policy information.
Concerns
The proposed changes have prompted concerns from disability organisations, particularly about whether reported additional costs provide a complete picture of the challenges faced by disabled people.
Mencap, a charity supporting people with learning disabilities, said the Resolution Foundation’s survey findings were inconsistent with its own research and understanding of the costs experienced 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.
PIP can help eligible people cover expenses such as higher energy bills, travel to medical appointments, sensory aids, and participation in community activities. These costs may continue throughout a person’s life, even if their spending varies from month to month.
A claimant may also have unmet needs because they cannot afford equipment or services. Someone who has not purchased a particular aid may still need it, while another person may rely on family support to meet everyday requirements.
These circumstances make it difficult to determine entitlement solely by looking at reported spending. Disability organisations have therefore called for disabled people to be involved in shaping any reforms.
Their participation could help policymakers identify costs that are easily overlooked and understand how different payment arrangements might affect people’s independence.
Reform
The DWP is reviewing PIP as part of a broader effort to assess whether the disability benefits system responds appropriately to the needs of claimants.
The Resolution Foundation’s recommendations are one contribution to that discussion. Other issues under consideration include assessment procedures, the treatment of fluctuating conditions, and whether certain forms of support could be delivered through services as well as cash payments.
For some people, practical assistance or access to specialist equipment may help address a specific need. For others, direct cash payments may provide greater flexibility because claimants understand their own circumstances and can decide how to allocate their budgets.
Any move towards a different system would need to establish how decisions are made, what appeal rights remain available, and how people can challenge assessments they believe do not reflect their needs.
It would also be important to consider the transition for existing claimants. Sudden changes to regular payments could make household budgeting more difficult, particularly for people who depend on PIP to meet essential ongoing expenses.
Until the government announces and implements specific changes, the Resolution Foundation’s suggestions should not be treated as new eligibility rules. Existing claimants should continue to follow current guidance and respond to official communications about their individual claims.
Outlook
The proposal to introduce one-off PIP payments reflects a wider debate about how disability support can be better matched to individual needs while controlling public expenditure. Targeted payments could be useful for some specific expenses, but regular financial assistance remains important for people who face continuing disability-related costs.
The research has highlighted possible differences between reported limitations and reported spending, but those findings do not establish that every claimant who reports no additional costs can manage without support. Any reform would need to account for unmet needs, fluctuating conditions, and the long-term expenses associated with disabilities.
For now, one-off payments remain a proposal for consideration rather than a confirmed change to PIP. The government’s review and any subsequent policy decisions will determine whether payment arrangements or assessment rules change. Until then, claimants should rely on official DWP guidance and avoid assuming that their existing benefits will automatically be replaced or reduced.
