pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

4. CONCLUSIONThe method proposed for estimating the goods and services produced from PFF andevaluating FF interventions is summarised below. The first step is measuring the incidence of NFF in Australia in a given year andmapping NFF to health, productivity and social/criminality outcomes or to interimoutcomes that other literature evidence can link to these end outcomes – using LSACand ATP datasets. Since parallels and linkages between measures in these studies arelimited, long term associations between FF in childhood could not be measured out intoadulthood without some caution over the results, which would need to be addressedthrough sensitivity analysis. . In order to achieve these measurements, a partnershipwith ATP/AIFS would be formed. This would be a requirement to access the ATPdatabase as significant restrictions are placed on external queries (resulting fromprivacy concerns). AIFS would conduct the analysis and mapping of the ATPdatabase. Costs would be estimated for each outcome using: AIHW data on health systemexpenditures for the attributed health conditions; largely ABS data for productivity costsfor the individual and for carers; largely SCRGSP data for criminal justice system andother government program costs such as educational assistance or child protectionservices responding to abuse notifications; macroeconomic data for estimating taxationrevenue forgone and deadweight losses; Centrelink data for estimating welfaretransfers; SDAC data for estimating aids and home modifications; other data for otherminor financial costs; and AIHW data for estimating the burden of disease together withDepartment of Finance and Deregulation estimates of the VSLY. CBA and CEA techniques could evaluate interventions to enhance FF and increase thegoods and services available in the Australian economy, using information on a shortlist of the interventions reviewed in this scoping paper, along with their cost andefficacy. A first step in the CBA/CEA would be mapping in greater detail eachintervention in this short list to the outcomes and costs as per the costing exercise.Markov modelling or Monte Carlo simulation could then assess selected interventionsrelative to comparators (generally the base case could be expected to be continuationof the status quo). CUA and CBA metrics could then be compared to benchmarks suchas WHO $/DALY guidelines for cost effectiveness of the breakeven point in CBA – netbenefit, BCR>1 or return on investment >0.Access Economics estimates that such an exercise would take some 6-9 months to completewith a ballpark cost of $150,000-$190,000 (plus data costs and GST, and allowing for theevaluation of up to three interventions). Risks to timeframes and data lie primarily in accessto data. Data from LSAC can be purchased but costs could only be determined once aspecific data request was submitted and quoted for. Collaboration with AIFS would berequired for access to the ATP database, which would involve additional inputs, expertise,opinions and analysis from AIFS researchers. Estimates of timeframe or costs involved inthis type of analysis could not be obtained from the researchers at AIFS at this preliminarystage, as a precise quote would depend on the scope and depth of analysis required. It islikely however that these costs would be substantial ($10,000-$20,000 as a guesstimate). Amore precise quotation could be provided depending on consideration of the findings of thismethodological scoping study.101