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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 12A.62<br />

Table 12A.62<br />

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

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

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

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

community)<br />

1 347.92 1 517.75 1 960.80 1 901.72 2 308.19<br />

Percent of services not reporting 16.6 17.7 14.5 8.4 4.7<br />

Expenditure covered by non reporting<br />

services (per cent)<br />

11.9 5.9 4.8 1.8 1.0<br />

(a) 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<br />

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

(b) 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<br />

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

measured consistently across jurisdictions.<br />

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

(d) Unit costs not casemix adjusted.<br />

(e) 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 />

Source : AIHW (unpublished), derived from the MHE NMDS ; State and Territory governments<br />

(unpublished).<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!