Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Part C: Outcomes
7.4 FURTHER ISSUES AND VIEWS ON OUTCOMES
• The outcomes of the 12 models developed in the Options Paper were summarised as
presenting the following choices:
Options that result in smaller differences overall generate smaller shifts between
regions.
Options that result in larger differences overall concentrate larger shifts on a smaller
number of regions balanced by consequent shifts from more regions.
• The comparison of the 12 options highlighted that no one option consistently resulted in
maximum or minimum outcomes for all rural or all metropolitan regions. The current
RREF resulted in a maximum share for three of the five rural regions and one metropolitan
region, and minimum shares for two metropolitan regions.
• The differences between the 4 and 6 variable models, and between models in which the
socio-economic variable or the ARIA were doubled were minor. In particular, it should be
noted that in the four models in which the ARIA was doubled, a maximum share resulted
for only one rural region.
• Four consistent views emerged from the assessment of the 12 options compared to the
current RREF in the Round 2 Consultations:
1. Options to revise the RREF pointed to the regions which were relatively under
or over-funded in the current RREF. Participants from the Northern and
Western Metropolitan Regions especially felt that projected outcomes from
options for revision justified their claims of under-funding under the current
RREF.
2. While participants obviously preferred the model that gave the maximum share
of resources to their region, there was wide acknowledgement of the need for
the RREF to improve equity between regions and to be seen to be equitable.
Some participants in rural regions, but not all, supported continuation of the
current RREF because it maximised their region’s share of resources, but the
current RREF was at the same time seen to be less equitable as a formula.
Complementing any revised RREF with other measures that addressed the cost
of travel in rural areas was widely seen as the preferred solution.
3. Given the small differences between the 12 models and the current RREF, and
that underlying demographic trends would lead to changes in future regional
shares of resources, participants recognised that the model which gave an
optimum outcome for their region in 2002 might not produce the optimum
outcome in subsequent years.
4. An overall preference was for a model with fewer rather than more variables,
and while there was support for adjusting the weighting of some individual
variables, this view was qualified in the absence of any clear rationales for
adjusting one variable rather than another, or for the extent of adjustment that
might be warranted. The differing contributions that the variables actually
made to the model was also recognised as moderating the need for further
adjustment.
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 77