Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Part B: Development of Options for a Revised RREF
1.7 FURTHER ISSUES AND PREFERRED OPTIONS
1. Data for defining the population in need of HACC services
The concerns expressed in the Round 1 consultations regarding use of the DACS data
were substantially addressed in the Options Paper. As well as providing answers to a
number of Frequently Asked Questions about the DAC survey, as detailed in Appendix
2, a number of strengths of the DAC survey data set out in the Options Paper were
acknowledged in the field.
No further issues were identified in the Round 2 consultations, but the need for ongoing
input of DHS and HACC providers to the development of the 2003 DACS was
emphasised.
2. Options for prevalence of handicap
Use of the statewide prevalence was accepted as providing the most robust estimates to
which weightings for need could be applied.
No further issues were identified.
3. Population living in community – exclusion of residential care
population
Exclusion of the population in aged residential care facilities and disability
accommodation was agreed, with the proviso that the latest available data on actual
residents in these facilities be used rather than approved beds, which included beds
approved in principle but not yet in operation. The relevant data for disability services
is available from DHS and has been sought for aged residential care from the
Commonwealth.
Some concerns were expressed about the historical pattern of supply of residential care
leading to movement from one local area to another. Such movement is however taken
into account as both residents in facilities and community residents are counted in the
LGA in which they are located at the time they are receiving either form of care.
There was general agreement that CACPs and other State-funded packages for younger
people with disabilities should not be subtracted given that clients in receipt of packages
may still use some HACC services not funded as part of their package, notably nursing.
The use of some community service by residents in aged care hostels and disability
accommodation was recognised. There is some trade off here, as clients receiving
CACPs are not deducted. Further, the deduction of the residential aged care population
after doubling the frail aged population in Base 3 has the effect of discounting that
population by only 50% and so gives some recognition to continued use of HACC
services by residents. Further consideration also needs to be given to recognition of the
local impact of different kinds of residential care services on HACC in regional and
local planning.
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 25