Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Options for revising the RREF do not result in dramatic shifts in resources between regions because the differences are relatively minor. There are greater differences between Local Government Areas in regions than between regions. Participants in both rounds of Consultations pointed out that such gradual changes would achieve only limited progress towards overall regional equity and that underlying inequities in base funding would persist unless further action was taken. As adoption of any revised RREF would redraw the equity line, it was argued that the equity component needs to be adjusted accordingly. Once a decision is made on a revised RREF, it will be possible to identify the scale of the equity component required and the time frame over which equity in regional shares of HACC funding could be realised, taking account of available resources. It should be stressed that, as with past equity adjustments, funds for this purpose would be set aside before the amount of growth funds to be allocated through the RREF was determined and would not affect the absolute amount of base funding that regions continued to receive or the shares of growth funds allocated through the RREF. In considering the relationship between annual HACC growth funds and existing base funds received by regions, it needs to be emphasised that there is only a limited nexus between the share of base funds and the share of growth funds that any region receives. The share of growth funds is projected forward for the coming year by the RREF, independently of the pre-existing share of base funding that any region receives which reflects historical trends and the incorporation of growth funds over many years. Rather than growth funds following the existing shares of base funding, it is the RREF that leads the determination of equitable shares of growth funding and base funding. There was support for action to address inequities in HACC base funding as part of the implementation strategy for any revised RREF. Continuing to identify an annual equity adjustment would provide the means of bringing base funding into line with equity as defined by the a revised RREF. The scale of adjustment required would be indicated by the different between the shares of base funding and the equitable shares defined by the revised RREF, as for growth funds. Future review and on-going development of the RREF Options for future review and on-going development of the RREF were identified at two levels. First, new data for updating the data used in the RREF will become available from three sources in the next two years: 1. The next national census is to be held in August 2001. As well as providing new data for updating of the base populations for the RREF with new DOI projections developed after the census, the census will enable updating and refinement of the four need variables that use census data, namely median household income, cultural diversity, the Koori population and the ARIA. Updating will take account of the combined effect of different rates of population growth between LGAs, associated changes in age structures, and changing characteristics of local populations. 2. Implementation of the HACC Minimum Data Set will generate a considerable amount of relevant data at LGA level over the next 12 months. These data will be especially useful for comparing estimates of the size and characteristics of local HACC target populations based on the DAC Survey with clients using services. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 86
Part D: Achieving Equity in the HACC Program 3. The next DAC Survey is planned for 2003 and together with ongoing work in DHS on the burden of disease, alternative measures should then become available for defining the population in need of HACC services on the basis of disability, limitations in social participation and need for assistance in activities of daily living. Apart from these specific opportunities for updating the data which is used in constructing the RREF, there is a need for on-going monitoring of the outcomes of any revised RREF that is implemented. It will be some time before such outcomes are apparent, and while a nine year interval without review as has occurred for the current RREF is too long, too frequent review can lead to instability. Updating of the need variables in the revised RREF when data become available from the 2001 Census is a relatively straightforward procedure and it is proposed that a full review of the structure of the revised RREF be made at the time that data from the next DACS survey becomes available, probably around late 2003 or early 2004. Consideration of new DACS data in conjunction with data from the HACC Minimum Data Set could lead to more significant changes in construction of the RREF rather than just updating of data. In the meantime, DHS should continue to liaise with the ABS through the User Group for the DACS to ensure maximum usefulness of the survey results for administration of HACC and other departmental programs. There is also a need for research that combines “top down” estimates derived from the DACS survey with “bottom-up” local area surveys using the current DACS schedule, and drawing on HACC MDS data from local providers. This work would inform the development of community care client classifications. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 87
Page 1 and 2:
FINAL REPORT REVIEW OF THE RELATIVE
Page 3 and 4:
STEP 3: OPTIONS FOR SCALING NEED VA
Page 5 and 6:
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTE ON TERMINOLO
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An exercise as ext
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Review of the
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary All regions will
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary Beyond the detail
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary 9. The planning a
Page 17 and 18:
PART A: BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE
Page 19 and 20:
Part A: Background and Scope of the
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
PART B: DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS FOR
Page 33 and 34:
Part B: Development of Options for
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Final Repo
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: Part B: Development of Options for
Page 59 and 60: Step 4: Options for weighting need
Page 65 and 66: Profiles of Need Variables Part B:
Page 67 and 68: Final Repo
Page 81 and 82: Part C: Outcomes In the initial mod
Page 83 and 84: Part C: Outcomes 5.3 FURTHER ISSUES
Page 85 and 86: Part C: Outcomes Step 6: Outcomes o
Page 87 and 88: Part C: Outcomes • The Northern a
Page 89 and 90: Part C: Outcomes By way of illustra
Page 91 and 92: Part C: Outcomes The outcomes of th
Page 93 and 94: Part C: Outcomes 7.4 FURTHER ISSUES
Page 95 and 96: Four features of the revised outcom
Page 97 and 98: Part C: Outcomes The adjustment for
Page 99 and 100: Part D: Achieving Equity in the HAC
Page 101: Unit cost structure The unit cost s
Page 105 and 106: APPENDIX 1.1 continued Commonwealth
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX 1.4: SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Page 109 and 110: Frequently Asked Questions A number
Page 111 and 112: DACS • 2.5% of children in the 0-
Page 113 and 114: LGA Median H’hold Inc. YLD Lang o
Page 115: Department of Human Services 1999b.
show all

Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?