Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Part B: Development of Options for a Revised RREF
Extensive modelling reported in the Options Paper indicated that doubling the ARIA did not
bring about a significant change in overall outcomes as the additional weighting applied
generally to only small rural populations. While the consultations identified rurality as a factor
warranting additional weight, it was also recognised that increases in resource allocation
flowing on from increased weighting of the ARIA in the RREF would result in higher
performance targets for rural service providers rather than addressing the additional costs of
service delivery associated with greater travel distances. It is seen as preferable to address these
cost issues through other measures rather than increasing the weight of the ARIA in the RREF
model, and this issue is discussed further in Part D of the <strong>Report</strong>.
4.7 RESOLUTION OF OPTIONS FOR WEIGHTING OF NEED VARIABLES
Given the five variables make different contributions to the overall need weighting, reflecting
the distribution of the scaled scores across LGAs, RREF options are prepared first without any
further adjustment to weightings.
To demonstrate the effects of adjusting weightings for selected variables, and to present a wider
range of options for a revised RREF, models are also prepared in which the weightings for the
socio-economic status variable: median household income, and the rurality variable: the ARIA,
are doubled.
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 48