Review periods longer than 10 years
In some exceptional cases, you may consider whether it may be appropriate to set a longer review period than those already mentioned in this chapter. This may mean setting a review period to the individual’s 18th birthday when their entitlement to CDP will end, by which time they will have been invited to apply to ADP.
These types of awards are only appropriate for a small group of individuals whose needs are highly unlikely to change or only likely to increase. You should consider all of the information available from the application or review form and supporting information in deciding whether or not to set an award review period.
You should consider the individual’s level of needs as opposed to their condition. The individual may have a condition that is highly unlikely to change but, as they gain more independence with age, their level of needs may change.
The individual’s entitlement to disability benefits will be reviewed when or if they decide to apply for Adult Disability Payment (ADP). They might be eligible for an indefinite award under ADP. These cases are exceptional. The case manager should only select this option if they are certain that the level of need is highly unlikely to change. It does not matter which rate of either component of CDP the individual is entitled to.
Example: a review date is so an entitlement to CDP will end when an individual turns 18
Roisin is 7 years old and has a spinal injury which has resulted in paralysis of her arms and legs.
Her father applies for CDP for Roisin and provides information about her needs. The case manager familiarises themselves with Roisin’s application alongside the supporting information provided. Rosin requires frequent attention and continual supervision during the day and repeated attention with her bodily functions at night. Rosin is also unable to walk. Based on this, they determine that Roisin is entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component and the highest rate of the care component of CDP.
They then consider what review period would be appropriate. The case manager takes into account Roisin’s prognosis and understands that her condition is not expected to improve and that her needs are unlikely to change over time.
Taking this into account, the case manager determines that a set review period would not be appropriate. They therefore decide not to set a review date. Roisin’s entitlement to CDP will instead continue until she turns 18, at which point she will be invited to apply for Adult Disability Payment (ADP).
Roisin’s determination letter advised her that we would not be setting a review date on her new award as we had decided that we did not expect her condition to change, she would continue to receive CDP until she was 18 years old when she would be invited to apply for ADP. As no review date was set, the case manager did not need to outline any updates for Roisin to provide at her next review.
Example: a scheduled review decision awards CDP so entitlement will end when an individual turns 18
Carla is 11 years old and developed sepsis following an operation, which resulted in the amputation of her right arm. Her father applied for CDP on her behalf 4 months after the amputation, and she has satisfied the backwards test.
He explains that Carla, who is right handed, is struggling to come to terms with the loss of her limb and the impact this has had on her daily routine.
The case manager reviews Carla’s application alongside the supporting information provided and contacts her father to gain further insight into how the amputation affects her day to day. Through this, the case manager establishes that Carla currently requires a high level of support from her parents during the day. They also note that she is expected to be fitted with a prosthetic arm within the next year.
Based on this, the case manager determines that Carla is entitled to the middle rate of the care component of CDP.
They then consider what review period might be appropriate. Taking into account advice from Carla’s consultant that she is expected to receive a prosthetic arm, and guidance from a practitioner about adjusting to prosthetics, the case manager decides to set an initial review period of 3 years. This allows time for Carla to receive the prosthetic and for any changes in her needs to stabilise. It is also recognised that, as she grows older, she may develop skills to help her manage more independently.
At her scheduled review, Carla’s father explains that there has been no improvement following the fitting of the prosthetic. Carla finds it difficult to use and also painful due to nerve damage, so she rarely uses it. Her needs have remained unchanged and she continues to require a high level of support.
The case manager requests a case discussion with a practitioner, which provides further understanding of the challenges associated with prosthetic use, including the impact of muscle loss and ongoing pain related to nerve damage following amputation.
They then consider whether a further review period is appropriate. The case manager recognises that the prosthetic has had no impact on Carla’s ability to manage her daytime care independently and that her needs are not expected to change. Taking this into account, they determine that a set review period is no longer appropriate.
They therefore decide not to set a further review date. Carla’s entitlement to CDP will instead continue until she turns 18, at which point she will be invited to apply for Adult Disability Payment (ADP).
Carla’s determination letter explains that no further review date has been set, as her needs are not expected to change. It confirms that she will continue to receive CDP until age 18, when she will be invited to apply for ADP. As no further CDP review is scheduled, the case manager did not set out any updates about Carla that would be needed to make a future review determination.
There is more information about individuals entitled to CDP beyond their 18th birthday in the Individuals 16 to 18 Years old chapter.