The Streeting review into mental health and neurodiversity overdiagnosis has issued an interim report on its progress, which suggests - even though benefits are not mentioned - that the final report may be a useful tool for those looking to justify cuts for some conditions.
As we revealed back in December, the review has as its vice chair the controversial and divisive Sir Simon Wessely. Its full report is due in June 2026, giving time for it to be incorporated into the Timms review.
The report has concluded that the prevalence of ADHD in the population remains relatively stable, but diagnosis of the condition has greatly increased, especially amongst young women. However, even at the increased rate of diagnosis, the number of people identified as having ADHD is still lower than would be expected. It has also found that treatment, especially medication, is becoming less common amongst children and young people.
The reports suggests that this may “reflect the fact that diagnosis is sometimes being pursued for reasons other than medication alone—for example, to obtain explanation, validation, educational support or workplace adjustments.”
It is hard not to see this as a suggestion, entirely unspoken by this review but perhaps to be said aloud by the Timms review, that a major reason “other than medication” is to obtain DLA or PIP.
The Streeting review now intends to try to discover whether the severity or functional impairment of diagnosed cases has changed over time. Clearly if the conclusion is that severity has decreased, then this would be an argument for reducing benefits awards for conditions like ADHD.
The report paints a similar picture for autism, with prevalence remaining relatively stable whilst rates of diagnosis have increased. There is also a suggestion that:
“Historical analyses show that behaviours in children once regarded as within the range of normal variation, or even as something to be welcomed in some contexts, are now more often interpreted as requiring intervention or treatment.”
Again, in the hands of the Timms review, the suggestion that ordinary behaviour has been medicalised and diagnosed as autism would be grounds for suggesting that benefits for neurodivergence, except in the most severe cases, should be reduced.
Predictably, the report warns of “concern that certain platforms, including TikTok, convey a high proportion of factually inaccurate messages around for example ADHD.”
Whilst this may lead to higher levels of inappropriate requests for assessment, it does not explain why more people are being diagnosed, as assessments are carried out by professionals who do not rely on TikTok as a diagnostic tool.
Although the report may hinting at a partial explanation for this when it points out that an increasing number of people are turning to private assessments. It argues that “evidence of wide variability in assessment conversion rates across providers, including under Right to Choose pathways, making it difficult to compare outcomes or assure consistency of diagnostic practice nationally.”
In other words, private providers may be over diagnosing neurodivergence and thus providing another excuse for cutting benefits for these conditions.
In relation to mental distress, the report finds that distress amongst young adults is rising more quickly than other age groups. The reports suggests that the issues young people experience are not just low mood but “difficulties with attention, self-management and resilience.” It also argues that “loneliness among young adults has increased markedly since the early 2010s.”
Again, it isn’t hard to see how these kinds of findings could be used to argue that the solution for young people with mental health conditions is not increased benefits, but more support with social skills and self-care.
The report also highlights the link between mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions and young people not being in education, employment or training (NEET). It highlights the cost to the public purse of this situation: “a young person who remains long-term NEET may generate lifetime public finance costs of £56,000–£100,000 and wider economic costs approaching £200,000–£300,000.”
Once more, this is the basis of an argument that young people with these conditions need to be put to work, not allowed to languish on benefits at such an enormous cost to the public purse.
As the authors explain “"What is clear is that services are under significant and sustained pressure, and that the status quo is unlikely to be sustainable or fair in its present form." The aim of the review, therefore “ is not only to improve outcomes for individuals and families but also to ensure that public resources are used more effectively”
Benefits and Work is not suggesting that the primary purpose of the Streeting review is to offer a justification for reducing benefits for certain conditions. In fact, welfare benefits remain studiously unmentioned throughout the text. But it does seem clear that the final report may easily be put to that use by the Timms review, if the panel so chooses.
You can download a copy of the interim report from this page.
