Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

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