Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Part A: Background and Scope of the RREF Review The Victorian RREF is a major mechanism for pursuing the fourth objective, but it is not the only mechanism shaping resource allocation. HACC funding in Victoria and in other states occurs within the wider context of planning, delivery and accountability, and draws on a range of other tools, including extensive consultation. The national HACC equalisation strategy The national budget for the HACC Program is divided among the States and Territories by a resource equalisation formula similar to the RREF. Funds appropriated by the Commonwealth are distributed between the States on the basis of each State’s share of the national program’s target population with an underlying objective of equalizing HACC expenditure per capita across Australia. Commonwealth funds are then matched in a roughly 60/40 ratio by each State. In the last few years, the national target population has been calculated from data from the 1993 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, carried out by the ABS. Discussions are currently underway among Commonwealth and State/Territory HACC officials on options for revising or updating the national formula. Regional HACC planning process in Victoria Since the 1995 Efficiency and Effectiveness Review, considerable progress has been made by the Commonwealth and States in the development of regional planning frameworks, based on the program’s output indicators. Nationally, the Commonwealth sponsored the development of a computer-based Service Provision Targets Framework which has been used by State administering authorities since 1997 to help achieve more equity in service outputs. Victoria’s Department of Human Services has adapted this system, creating a ‘HACC Planning Tool’ using Excel spreadsheets. Once a region has been allocated its share of growth funds the DHS regional planners use the HACC Planning Tool to decide how to allocate the funds across the range of service providers and service types. Regional staff also arranged consultations with consumer and provider groups as part of this process. The aim is to achieve greater equity and comprehensiveness in the range of HACC service types across LGAs. In this context, ‘equity’ is measured in terms of the number of hours of each service type available per thousand people in the HACC Target Population, as defined for use in the RREF. THE REVIEW PROCESS Timetable The Review was announced in May 2000 and the Consultancy Team engaged to undertake the review the RREF commenced in October 2000. The first round of Consultations were held in late November and early December 2000 and the second round in March and April 2001. Consultation Reference Group and Steering Group The Review drew on inputs from a wide range of sources and was supported by a Reference Group comprising some 20 provider and consumer groups, as detailed in Appendix 1.1, and an internal DHS Steering Committee that included representatives of Regional Offices, as detailed in Appendix 1.2 <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 4
Part A: Background and Scope of the RREF Review Consultation Paper A Consultation Paper was prepared as a basis for the first round of and as a guide for those making written submissions to the Review. The audience for the paper was all those involved in the HACC program, whether as actual or potential clients, carers, consumer organisations, providers and/or administrators. The Consultation Paper aimed to promote discussion of the role of the resource allocation formula as an integral part of the HACC program. It set out the issues raised in the Terms of Reference and posed 14 questions for discussion. The questions were not exhaustive and it was expected that further issues would be raised in the consultations and submissions. The Consultation Paper made reference to some issues that were also being addressed in the concurrent consultations on the report Targeting in the Home and Community Care Program (Howe and Gray, 1998), and separate consultations on that report were held following the RREF consultations. Round 1 Consultations and Submissions The Consultation Paper was widely distributed directly and via the DHS web site prior to the first round of consultations which were held in late November and early December 2000. Consultations were held in each of the nine DHS regions across Victoria, four in metropolitan areas and five in rural areas. Additional consultations were also held in Mildura and Geelong because of the geographic extent of the respective regions, and with indigenous groups. The Schedule of Consultations is at Appendix 1.3. Some 200 individuals attended the consultations, representing 140 service providers and consumer representative organisations: • 35% were from Local Government; • 30% were from health related agencies such as ACAS and Community Health Centres; • other community service agencies involved in HACC and related programs, including ethnic organisations: Vision Australia, Uniting Care Victoria, Salvation Army, Baptist Community Care, Jewish Community Services, Australian Polish Community Services, Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd., Chinese Community Social Services Centre, Greek Welfare Centre (Fairfield), Palliative Care Victoria, Association of Supportive Care Homes, Migrant Resource Centre (Mitcham); • smaller numbers of HACC providers specifically from the disability sector, including Community Connections (Warrnambool), Interchange (Central Gippsland and Loddon- Mallee), Victorian Brain Injury Recovery Centre, Bright Industries; • consumer groups, including Carers Victoria, Motor Neurone Disease Association; and • Commonwealth Government Departments, DHAC, DVA. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 5
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: Part A: Background and Scope of the
Page 23 and 24: Part A: Background and Scope of the
Page 31 and 32: PART B: DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS FOR
Page 33 and 34: Part B: Development of Options for
Page 39 and 40: Final Repo
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 71 and 72:
Part B: Development of Options for
Page 73 and 74:
Final Repo
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
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 and 102:
Unit cost structure The unit cost s
Page 103 and 104:
Part D: Achieving Equity in the HAC
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?