Proposal to Replace PIP with ACDP Gains Momentum

Trigger Warning & Disclaimer: This article discusses disability benefits, welfare reforms, and systemic barriers, which may be upsetting or triggering for readers who have experienced the PIP system or related discrimination. Please take care while reading. The information provided here is for awareness and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal, financial, or medical advice. Readers are encouraged to seek independent professional guidance for their individual circumstances.

“A new vision for disability support that focuses on dignity, fairness, and the real costs of living.”

A sweeping new proposal to scrap the current Personal Independence Payment (PIP) system and replace it with what is being called an Additional Costs Disability Payment (ACDP) has drawn strong praise from Members of Parliament, disabled people, and unions. The ACDP is part of a broader push for reform by the independent Commission on Social Security (CSS), which argues that PIP is “deeply flawed” and insufficient for the real extra costs many people with impairments or long-term health conditions face.

Here are the key features, debates, and controversies.

What is the ACDP, and How Would It Differ from PIP

According to the CSS proposal:

The ACDP is designed to cover all a disabled person’s “extra disability-related costs”, not merely contribute toward them as PIP currently does.
It would not be based on a points-assessment system or strictly on medical diagnoses. Instead, eligibility would focus on the impact of impairment or health condition on additional costs. Decisions would be made with claimants rather than on them.
The proposal is co-produced: the CSS includes many people with lived experience of the benefits system; most of those involved are themselves disabled or have been on benefits.
It also outlines supporting structures: claimants could use whatever evidence they choose, there would be an independent advocacy service (run largely by disabled people’s organisations), an independent complaints process, a national body to research disability additional costs, and monitoring for safety and harm in the system.

Consultation, Support, and Numbers

The CSS ran a consultation in spring 2025 on the ACDP draft proposal. More than 5,000 people responded; about 90% of those who took part are disabled. The feedback was described in reports as “overwhelmingly positive.”
The proposal was launched formally in the House of Commons in mid-September 2025.

Why Supporters Say Change Is Needed

Supporters argue:

PIP is frequently criticised for being inaccurate, for rejecting or terminating claimants erroneously, and for assessments that are hostile, stressful, opaque, or inconsistent. They say there is a “culture of mistrust” around it.
The current system often does not account for the full scale of extra costs disabled people face, costs for heating, medical or mobility equipment, adaptations, extra help, etc, so many are left out or under-compensated.
Additionally, those with lived experience point out that many of the rules, evidence requirements, points systems, and frequent assessments exacerbate mental health burdens, uncertainty, and financial instability. Co-production (i.e., involving disabled people in designing the benefit) is seen as a more humane and effective route.

What the Government and Opponents Say / Proposed Reforms & Concerns

While the ACDP proposal is not (yet) government policy, it comes against a background of significant proposals from government that have caused concern from disabled people’s organisations. Some salient points:

The Government has proposed changes in Pathways to Work / Green Papers that would tighten eligibility for PIP, making it harder for people to qualify for certain components unless certain point thresholds or more severe impairments are met. Critics warn this could push many off PIP who currently qualify under existing rules.
There have been proposed cuts to the “health element” of Universal Credit (UC Health) for new claimants, and changes that freeze or reduce levels of benefits or change how assessments work. These have been met with strong opposition.
Some supporters of PIP reform argue that merely changing eligibility without addressing the underlying cost burdens, medical and mobility needs, or systemic barriers is insufficient. Reform must involve changes to how disability is understood (including recognising non-visible impairments, fluctuating conditions, etc.), plus recognition of human rights obligations.

What Is Known / Not Known

There are a few areas where the proposed changes or the debates remain under-clarified:

Costing: The CSS acknowledges that ACDP would almost certainly be more expensive than PIP, but detailed cost projections or funding sources have not been fully set out.
Implementation timeline: It is not yet clear if or when the government would adopt the ACDP, or what legislative and administrative changes would be needed.
Evidence tracking/spending tracking: There have been suggestions in government dialogue of reforms that involve tracking how disabled people spend their money, or evidence requirements around spending. But many disability rights groups are wary of systems that monitor or police disabled people’s spending in ways that are intrusive or disrespectful. The CSS’s proposal leans toward letting claimants provide whatever evidence they choose rather than fixed forms of evidence.

Who Were the ~5,000 Participants

The consultation attracted more than 5,000 respondents, about 90% of whom identified as disabled.
They were individuals, organisations, focus groups, etc., invited or self-selected through the CSS survey and focus groups. Most had direct experience with social security or disability.

Human Rights, Medical Records, and Assessment of Capability

An important contested issue in the debate is how capability (i.e. whether someone is able to undertake certain tasks, work, etc.) is assessed:

Under PIP, assessments are tied to medical evidence, diagnoses, and a points system across specific daily living or mobility tasks. Supporters of ACDP argue that medical diagnosis alone does not capture the real impact on costs or capabilities, especially for non-visible or fluctuating conditions.
However, some government reforms propose more stringent evidence or verification, sometimes involving medical records, or limiting which conditions or impairments qualify under stricter criteria. This is controversial because many disabled people face barriers in obtaining medical evidence or have conditions where medical records do not reflect day-to-day limitations.
Groups like DisabledEntrepreneur.uk and other lived experience or advocacy organisations frequently emphasise that barriers are not only medical or technical but social, physical, attitudinal, administrative (e.g., form filling, frequent reassessments), and legal/human rights based. For those who disagree with what such organisations say, supporters argue that they should listen and educate themselves about the daily barriers disabled people face; otherwise, policy continues to be formulated without a full understanding.

Why Some Are Concerned / Criticisms

Some fear that even with reform, any new system will still embed thresholds, tests, or eligibility rules that exclude people with less visible or less “severe” conditions.
The challenge of funding: replacing a benefit like PIP with something more generous or covering more costs means additional public expenditure. Questions remain over whether the government will commit to that.
Risk of unintended consequences: changes in eligibility or stricter rules may push people into poverty, or create a two-tier system (new claimants under stricter rules vs existing claimants under older rules).
The danger of means testing or medical evidence becoming gatekeeping barriers.

A Moment of Opportunity

The ACDP proposal represents one of the most ambitious alternatives to PIP yet: it seeks to be more responsive, rights-respecting, co-produced, and realistic in recognising the full extra costs disabled people face. Whether it is adopted (in whole or part), modified, or dismissed will depend heavily on political will, resource allocation, pressure from disabled people’s organisations and unions, public opinion, and how the government balances concerns about cost vs fairness. For many disabled people, the proposal offers hope for a more compassionate system; for others, it’s a reminder that real reform will require more than tweaking the existing PIP framework.

In Layman’s terms, it is suggested that the government’s own reform proposals (not the CSS’s ACDP idea) are moving in the direction of the “spending-linked” model, where disabled people might need to prove how they spend their benefit money, almost like having to show receipts for purchases, or being monitored through a prepaid card system. The idea was that only “disability-related” spending would be covered.

🔹 The government’s floated idea, however, is controlling and would feel like “show us the receipts” policing. Many disability rights groups slammed it as intrusive, demeaning, and impractical, not least because costs are personal and don’t fit neat categories.

🔹 The CSS’s ACDP proposal is the opposite: it is designed by disabled people and says claimants should decide what evidence they provide. It doesn’t involve tracking purchases or receipts. Instead, it recognises that extra costs vary hugely (from heating bills to specialist diets to transport), and it would simply give people the payment to cover those costs.

Here’s a clear comparison table that we have used to show the difference between the government’s floated PIP reforms and the CSS’s ACDP proposal 👇

PIP Reform vs ACDP Proposal: Key Differences

Feature	Government’s Floated PIP Reform	Commission on Social Security’s ACDP Proposal
Spending Control	Suggested tracking how money is spent – possibly requiring receipts or prepaid cards to prove funds go on “disability-related” costs.	No spending control – claimants decide how to use their benefit, recognising that extra costs vary for each person.
Design Approach	Top-down, designed mainly by government policymakers.	Co-produced by people with lived experience of disability and benefits.
Assessment Method	Tighter eligibility rules; more emphasis on evidence and possibly stricter thresholds.	Focuses on real additional costs of disability, not points or labels. Claimants can provide whatever evidence they choose.
Claimant Experience	Aims to cover the full range of disability-related extra costs (e.g., heating, transport, equipment, diets).	Intended to be supportive, dignified, and flexible.
Coverage of Costs	Likely to cover only certain “approved” expenses.	Aims to cover the full range of disability-related extra costs (e.g. heating, transport, equipment, diets).
Oversight	Government agencies set rules, with limited independent advocacy.	Independent advocacy service, independent complaints process, and monitoring for harm.

Conclusion

👉 In short:

The government’s idea feels like “prove it with receipts.”
The ACDP is about trust, dignity, and real cost coverage.

At DisabledEntrepreneur.uk, we support the ACDP approach because it is designed by disabled people, for disabled people, and recognises the full reality of daily barriers. We reject any system that forces claimants to “prove” their disability-related costs with receipts or spending controls, as this strips people of dignity and human rights. Disabled people know best how to manage their own lives and finances; what they need is trust, fair support, and recognition of the extra costs they face, not surveillance.

💬 Call to Action
The future of disability support should be shaped by those who live it every day. If you have experiences, insights, or stories to share about PIP or the barriers you face, we invite you to join the conversation at DisabledEntrepreneur.uk. Together, we can raise awareness, challenge injustice, and push for a system built on dignity, trust, and human rights.