Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Part C: Outcomes Step 5: Outcomes for Base Population Options and Projections 5.1 FACTORS AFFECTING OUTCOMES Initial outcomes for modelling three base populations were presented in the Options Paper and compared to the current RREF base population without the weighting for rurality. This baseline is labelled Base RREF. Differences between the initial outcomes and revised outcomes were minor and only the revised outcomes are reported here. The factors affecting outcomes were identified as: 1. the more accurate definition of those living in the community by exclusion of residents in aged residential care and disability accommodation, and exclusion of the veteran population eligible for the DVA Home Care Program in all options, compared to Base RREF which excludes only those 85 and over in aged residential care; 2. the adjustments made for the frail aged in each option compared to Base RREF, which includes all those aged 85 and over living in the community with or without any level of handicap. Two provisos have to be kept in mind in considering both the results reported in Tables 5.1 and 5.2: 1. the comparisons did not include any weighting for need factors. 2. the total base population given in the tables are for “persons”, but the figures do not correspond to individuals in the HACC target population but reflect the different components taken into account in defining each option and the adjustment for the frail aged. 5.2 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR BASE POPULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS The results of the initial modelling for three options for the RREF base population were presented in the Options Paper and views on these outcomes were sought in the Round 2 Consultations. The options for discussion were presented as follows: How different are the base population options? • Comparisons are made with the current RREF without the weighting for rurality, labelled Base RREF • Differences between the options reflect - the adjustment made for the frail aged in each option - the age structure of each region. How do the RREF base population’s change by 2006? • Outcomes of projections for regions reflect underlying demographic trends, particularly the absolute and relative growth of the population aged 70 and over and the old-old. • Underlying demographic trends will have a significant effect throughout all further options. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 66
Part C: Outcomes 5.3 FURTHER ISSUES AND VIEWS ON OUTCOMES The only issue arising from the results of the base populations presented in the Options Paper was some discussion about the relevance of the size of the different base populations. As already noted, while some preference was expressed for Base 2 as it produced a larger population, the absolute size of the population does not have a bearing on the total level of resources made available to HACC or regional shares of those resources. 5.4 MODELING REVISED OPTIONS FOR BASE POPULATIONS • In line with the balance of preferences for Base 2 and Base 3 with regard to the adjustment for the frail aged, both options for the revised RREF in 2002 are presented in Table 5.1 and projections to 2006 in Table 5.2. • The Base 2 and Base 3 Options include the other adjustments in the base populations as detailed in Step 1. • Two provisos should be noted for the current RREF base population: 1. The figures are not weighted for rurality. 2. The veteran population eligible for the VHC has not been deducted for either 2002 or for 2006. However, such an adjustment would be highly likely in the event of continuation of the current RREF. 5.5 REVISED OUTCOMES FOR BASE POPULATIONS Comparison of the revised outcomes for the base populations shows: Base 1 which includes only those with moderate, severe and profound levels of handicap at all ages, with no adjustment for the frail aged, generated a smaller total base population, 20.3% less than Base RREF. Base 1 was included to this point to illustrate the impact of adjustments for the frail aged component of the HACC target population in Base 2 and 3. As there was strong support for adjusting for the frail aged population to a greater extent than in the current RREF, no further results are presented for modelling on Base 1. Base 2 generates a much larger total base population, 47.3% larger than Base RREF, because it includes the population with moderate, severe or profound handicap to age 70, plus the total population aged 70 and over. Base 3 generates an intermediate total base population, 18.1% larger than Base RREF, because it includes the population with moderate, severe or profound handicap to age 70, plus double the handicapped population aged 70 and over. The smaller overall difference shows that doubling the handicapped aged in the community makes a more substantial adjustment for the frail aged component of the base population than the subtraction only of residents aged 85 and over in Base RREF then inclusion of the balance of all those aged 85 and over. Base 3 represent the starting point closest to the current RREF (without the rural weighting). <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 67
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 and 20:
Part A: Background and Scope of the
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
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 81: Part C: Outcomes In the initial mod
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?