Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Several features of the base population options warrant note: Part C: Outcomes • The differences between the regional shares are very minor, for both years. This outcome means that weighting the base populations for need will potentially have a greater difference in regional shares of resource than differences in the definition of the base populations. • Rates of growth to 2006 are given in Table 5.2. The higher rate of increase for Base 3, 8.2% overall, reflects the more rapid growth of the old-old population, among which prevalence of handicap is higher, whereas the lower growth for Base 2, 6.3% overall, reflects the lower rate of increase in the young-old population. Again, there are some rural and some metropolitan regions with above and below average growth rates. • The higher rate of growth of Base Population 3 means it is likely to bring greater changes in resource allocation over time than Base Population 2 which changes more slowly. Table 5.1: Comparison of Options for revised RREF Base Population, 2002 Base Population Base RREF Base 1 Base 2 Base 3 A: Number 424,100 337,946 624,771 500,838 Compared to Base RREF -20.3% +47.3% +18.1% B. Regional Shares % share % share % share % share Barwon South Western 7.5 7.2 7.8 7.6 Grampians 4.5 4.2 4.6 4.5 Loddon Mallee 6.4 6.0 6.4 6.3 Hume 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3 Gippsland 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 Western 11.5 12.4 11.3 11.5 Northern 15.1 15.6 14.8 14.9 Eastern 20.2 20.5 20.0 20.3 Southern 24.0 23.5 24.0 24.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5.2: Growth of Base Populations, 2002 to 2006 Region Regional share in 2006 % growth 2002 to 2006 Base Base 2 Base 3 Base Base 2 Base 3 RREF RREF No. 450,185 664,545 539,677 Barwon South 7.4 7.7 7.6 5.1 5.1 7.0 West Grampians 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 5.8 6.7 Loddon Mallee 6.4 6.4 6.3 5.8 6.4 7.7 Hume 5.4 5.4 5.3 6.6 7.5 8.4 Gippsland 5.5 5.9 5.8 7.5 8.2 9.9 Western 11.7 11.5 11.7 8.3 8.6 9.8 Northern 15.1 14.9 14.9 6.2 6.8 7.9 Eastern 19.9 19.7 20.0 4.8 5.1 6.1 Southern 24.1 23.9 24.0 6.5 5.9 7.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.2 6.4 7.8 <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 68
Part C: Outcomes Step 6: Outcomes of weighting for need variables 6.1 METHOD AND OUTCOMES REPORTED Two sets of results were reported in the Options Paper for the initial options of weighting for six need variables, and the same results are reported here for the revised options for the five variables selected for weighting for need, namely average need weightings for regions in Table 6.1 and comparisons with weightings for the current RREF in Table 6.2. In addition, the scaled need scores for LGAs and percentage weightings are reported in Appendix 3. Weighting for the five need variables involved three steps: 1. Scoring each variable for each LGA on a scale from 0 to 9, with high scores representing high need for HACC services. 2. Adding the scaled scores from 0 to 9 for each LGA to obtain a total score for each LGA out of a possible maximum of 45 (5 x 9); 3. Converting these scores out of 45 to percentages. 6.2 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR WEIGHTING OF NEED VARIABLES The outcomes of taking the initial six need variables into account were reported at regional level in the Options Paper and LGA level data were also presented at the Round 2 consultations. The consultations sought views on the outcomes as follow: The RREF allocates resources on the basis of relative need, and weighting for the six need factors shows variations in relative need • Do the regional weightings accord with your understanding of variations in need? Options for even and different weighting of the need variables are to be modelled to illustrate the effects of these approaches to weighting • It is important to understand that even weighting does not mean that all need variables make the same contribution to the model, but that this depends on the actual distribution of scaled scores at LGA level. • Have the options for weighting of need variable been adequately explained? <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 69
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 and 82: Part C: Outcomes In the initial mod
Page 83: Part C: Outcomes 5.3 FURTHER ISSUES
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?