16.05.2014 Views

Attachment tables only (PDF - 395 Kb)

Attachment tables only (PDF - 395 Kb)

Attachment tables only (PDF - 395 Kb)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 12A.60<br />

Table 12A.60<br />

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07<br />

Unit cost (dollars per treated patient in the<br />

community)<br />

2 143.46 1 624.87 2 907.89 2 421.64 2 554.36<br />

Percent of services not reporting 11.8 16.7 16.7 23.1 –<br />

(a)<br />

(b)<br />

(c)<br />

(d)<br />

(e)<br />

Average cost to government (recurrent) per treated patient in the<br />

community ACT (2006-07 dollars) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h)<br />

Expenditure covered by non reporting services<br />

(per cent)<br />

3.1 0.3 0.6 2.9 –<br />

The above data and derived indicators have significant data quality problems and are presented for<br />

demonstration purposes <strong>only</strong>, which is aimed at improving the quality of information reported in future<br />

years. The data and indicators are not of sufficient quality to be used for any form of comparative<br />

analysis of the performance of State and Territory jurisdictions. Future work will focus on improving data<br />

on service outputs and outcomes to support a range of analyses.<br />

The absence of unique patient identifiers in many jurisdictions means that clients who happen to attend<br />

mental health services other than their usual service may be counted twice. This double counting may<br />

artificially reduce average costs in some states or territories. Victoria, WA, the ACT and the NT have<br />

statewide systems of unique identifiers, so the extent of overcounting of patients in these states is<br />

relatively lower than in other jurisdictions. Differences across jurisdictions in the complexity of cases<br />

treated, the service options available for treatment and admission practices also reduce comparability of<br />

data between states and territories. In addition, cost components such as depreciation are not<br />

measured consistently across jurisdictions.<br />

Depreciation is excluded as it is variably handled by jurisdictions.<br />

Unit costs not casemix adjusted.<br />

Constant price expenditure expressed in 2006-07 prices using the State and Territory implicit price<br />

deflators for general government final consumption expenditure on hospital clinical services (table<br />

12A.69).<br />

(f) See the National Mental Health Report 2007 for a full description of data sources and analysis.<br />

(g) Calculation of average unit costs excludes those services with missing patient data.<br />

(h) Data on the total number of treated patients in the community for 2002-03 and 2004-05 have been<br />

revised.<br />

– Nil or rounded to zero.<br />

Source : ACT Government (unpublished); AIHW (unpublished), derived from the MHE NMDS .<br />

REPORT ON<br />

GOVERNMENT<br />

SERVICES 2009<br />

HEALTH<br />

MANAGEMENT<br />

ISSUES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!