Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Part B: Development of Options for a Revised RREF
As well as these criteria, two technical considerations need to be taken into account:
• The data have to be collected systematically and be available from a reliable source;
and
• There is minimum duplication or redundancy with other variables.
The first seven criteria are self-explanatory. The last criterion, assessment of duplication or
redundancy, can be done in descriptive terms and/or statistically, and can especially assist in
selection between alternative variables as indicators of similar aspects of need.
2.3 ASSESSMENT OF VARIABLES
It should be emphasised that all the variables identified in the consultations were recognised as
having a bearing on need for HACC services, and that elimination of any variable for
consideration for inclusion for weighting the RREF is not a denial of this relevance. Rather
than including all possible variables however, the revised RREF has to include a careful
selection of a smaller number of variables that are strongly related to need and that are
statistically sound. Appropriate variables were assessed against the criteria set out above and
identified by a process of elimination as set out in Chart 2.
29 variables were proposed
⇒ 6 variables were considered and adopted as options for the RREF base population.
⇒ The residential care shortfall variable and the veteran population have also been covered
in discussion of the base population.
21 variables remained
⇒
6 were eliminated as not meeting the key criteria of being available at LGA level, being
available from a reliable source and / or duplication or redundancy with other variables.
These 6 variables and reasons for elimination were:
Retirement village residents were excluded on grounds of data not being available at LGA
level, from a reliable source; as well as the definition of “retirement village” being problematic
in relation to inclusion of some nursing home and hostel residents. This variable failed to meet
most of the other criteria. Residents of retirement villages are of course included in the base
populations as part of total LGA populations.
Carer availability failed the criteria of LGA level data being available from a reliable source
and also has a high level of duplication with living alone. Self evidently, those living alone do
not have a co-resident carer, and the majority, but certainly not all, non-co-resident carers are
able to provide less intensive support. Further, higher needs for support from services on the
part of those living alone are counterbalanced by the needs for carer support on the part of those
who live with or have non-co-resident carers. There is thus considerable duplication between
the variables living alone and lack of a carer, and at the same time, having a carer and not
having a carer both create needs for support from services.
Take up rates of Carer Payment and Carer Allowance were excluded on grounds of
duplication and redundancy, and apparent under-take up. Recipients of Carer Payment, which is
means tested as an income support payment, can also receive Carer Allowance, but the level of
take up of Carer Allowance appears to be below the level of eligible recipients. There is also
potential for duplication between income variables and the Carer Payment.
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 35