Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONSULTANCY TEAM The Department of Human Services commissioned Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd. to undertake the consultancy for the RREF Review. The consultancy team was: Anna Howe, PhD, Independent Consultant Gerontologist Richard Rosewarne, PhD, Applied Aged Care Solutions Pty Ltd Hugh Sarjeant, Consulting Actuary, Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd Diana Droog, Business Manager, Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd Liz Lowe, HDG Consulting Group Ro Saxon, HDG Consulting Group <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Review of the Relative Resource Equity Formula for the HACC Program was announced by the Victorian Minister for Housing and Aged Care, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike, in May 2000. The purpose of the Review was to examine the ways in which the formula contributed to the achievement of equity of resource allocation in the HACC Program across the nine Department of Human Services regions in Victoria. The RREF is the formula that has been used in the HACC program since 1992 to distribute annual growth funds and to bring about adjustments in base funding to achieve equitable funding for the target population in each region. The HACC target population has been defined by the Commonwealth and States on the basis of the population with moderate, severe and profound levels of core activity restriction, as measured in the most recent Disability, Ageing and Carers Survey conducted by the by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1998. To date, the only other need factor for HACC services recognised in the RREF has been for rurality. This failure to take account of the range of other factors potentially affecting the need for HACC services was seen as limiting the effectiveness of the RREF as a mechanism for equitable resource allocation. The Review process involved investigation of a range of policy and program material and background literature, extensive analysis of statistical data and modelling, and preparation of a Consultation Paper and Options Paper to provide background information for two rounds of consultations. Consultation sessions were held in all nine regions across the state, and additional consultations were held with Koori groups. Some 200 participants attended each round of consultations, representing HACC provider and consumer organisations. Issues raised in each round were taken into account in subsequent stages of the Review. The consultations identified a wide range of shortcomings with the current RREF and critical areas for attention. There was strong support for revision of the RREF and the second round of consultations canvassed options for the five main elements of the RREF - the base population; the need variables to be included; and the scaling, weighting and number of variables. Outcomes of revised RREF models were presented in terms of regional shares of growth funds and preferences among the range of options for the elements of the RREF were assessed. The options put forward for revision of the RREF were seen to have addressed the major limitations of the current formula. The initial outcomes reported in the Options Paper have been revised to take account of the rating of options and other issues identified in the second round of consultations and a new set of revised outcomes are presented in this <strong>Report</strong>. The revisions to the RREF were widely accepted as providing a more equitable mechanism for resource allocation, and recognition of this improvement is a key consideration in adopting a revised RREF. The shares of growth funds allocated to regions under the revised models show only relatively small shifts from the shares that would be received under continuation of the current RREF. The options for a revised RREF have been built up from data at Local Government Area level, and the analysis of these data has shown that the degree of variation in need between LGAs in each region is at least as great as differences in average need levels between regions. As the RREF only allocates resources at the inter-regional level, addressing these marked variations in need within regions is identified as a priority for regional and local planning. The relationship between regional shares of growth funds and base funds was also raised in the context of any new RREF. The current RREF includes provision for identification of separate funding for an equity adjustment to base funding and this option remains in any revised RREF. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 v
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: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An exercise as ext
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 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 61 and 62:
Part B: Development of Options for
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Profiles of Need Variables Part B:
Page 67 and 68:
Final Repo
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?