Procedimiento de ajuste de parámetros – Estudio de caso

As noted in the unit price development process, community support and family support pricing is relatively un-complex as it is based primarily on hours of support which is predominantly staff cost based. In the unit pricing data review, the distribution of costs between service providers was relatively small (compared to other service types).

As a result of this, transitional arrangements for these services are relatively simple where:

ƒ the Department should roll over existing quanta of funding to each service provider and express the exiting funding in terms of a number of service hours required, based on the developed unit prices

ƒ service providers should accept the offer or indicate to the Department any reasons why they may not be able to meet the target hours and may need a transitional period to do so. In these cases the Department may accept a transitional target to allow the service provider to transition its service models to enable them to meet targets in the medium to longer term.

Critically, for this transitional approach, no funding transition arrangements will be required. The sole, and likely rare, exception to this may be where a service provider indicates the need for a transitional target that, in the assessment of the Department, may result in a gap in local service capacity. In these cases a temporary funding adjustment may be required. That said, this scenario is considered unlikely given that it implies the likely presence of a pre-existing gap in local service provision previously unidentified or not responded to by the Department and/or provider.

8.2. Service level agreements

In order for the unit pricing mechanism to accurately reflect the cost of service delivery and, where applicable, drive efficiencies, the Department should consider incorporating the following requirements into new service level agreements:

ƒ a statement of requirement for a provider to report specific financial, activity and performance data to enable the Department to identify unit costs. These at the minimum would include:

− Units of service delivered (as defined under the agreed standard units of measurement discussed elsewhere in this report) − Paid (i.e., non-volunteer) FTE count of direct service delivery staff and their direct management

ABCD

− Labour cost of the above

− Other direct costs (i.e., those directly incurred in the provision of a service)

− Indirect costs (i.e., other corporate costs incurred in the support of the service provision)

− Separate to the above, the statement would need to identify any capital charges included in any of the above; this would include asset charges (amortisation or depreciation) and any interest charges (both asset related and general)

ƒ a statement regarding how cost indexation is to be addressed in the pricing model (described earlier);

ƒ a statement regarding the method under which a price path to an efficient price is established (per the section above); and

ƒ a statement regarding the review processes that may in the future be applied in response to any future pricing model issues and funding adequacy.

The items listed above are in addition to any service measures that the Department may want to include to reflect on service quality (as distinct to service volumes).

Should a price be set by the Department for any of the services it intends to purchase, it must also be clearly established and understood that organisations are required to manage their businesses so as to reduce the ‘downside’ risk of increased costs or other pertinent business risks. A corollary of this is that providers will be allowed to keep surplus funds to reinvest into their business in order to increase market share, increase service quality and grow capability within the business.

In the transition period, the reporting of cost and service volumes enable the Department to assess the adequacy of its pricing models (e.g., does the labour index adequately reflect changes in incurred labour unit costs) and the performance of the providers on a price path to meet that price path and offered prices, with resultant indicators of likely sector viability through the transition period.

ABCD

9. Resource allocation

When determining the manner in which funding is to be distributed across Tasmania, so that the Department may equitably purchase Disability, Family Support and Out of Home Care Services, it is important to consider how a number of pertinent variables may impact the demand for and consequent flow of funds across the state. Accordingly, the Resource Allocation Model may be driven by the following four potential allocation bases: ƒ the broad distribution of the Tasmanian population between Departmental Regions;

ƒ the distribution of the sub-populations of Tasmanians requiring Disability, Out of Home Care, and Family Support Services between the four Departmental regions;

ƒ the broad distribution of the Tasmanian population between Departmental Regions adjusted for rurality in the recognition that population densities of Tasmanians requiring services may be skewed to more rural communities; and

ƒ the broad distribution of the Tasmanian population between Departmental Regions adjusted for socio-economics in the recognition that population densities of Tasmanians requiring services may be skewed to more disadvantaged.

When considering whether a differential funding allocation rate is required to reflect differences in the Disability, Family Support and Out of Home Care Service sectors, age cohort modelling was undertaken to assess variations in the distribution of the various client populations. No differences were noted that had a material impact on allocation and its likely cost impact. This conclusion is based, however, on what has been assumed to be moderate to high-level allocation adjustments for rurality and socio-economic factors, which do require consideration by the Department.

As a result of modelling, based on current Tasmanian population profiles, there was found to be no material impact on the allocation of funding for services as a result of age (sector), rurality, and socioeconomic factors. In addition, there were no other significant factors noted to be driving costs at the individual provider level that would require any further adjustments (e.g., differential cost of serving rural communities).

When compared to existing funding allocation, the modelled allocations indicate that only a small reallocation of funding distribution may be required in the move to the new pricing system.

It is recommended, therefore, that the Department adopt a single population based allocation basis for funding allocation of its services. Other than a single basis being appropriate from an allocative perspective, this approach also offers benefits by being simple and transparent, benefiting both the Department and the Service Sector in:

ABCD

ƒ service planning

ƒ having a level of funding certainty ƒ being equitable.

The population based allocation basis adopted should remain valid for a five-year period, with a five yearly update with latest census data. Where services are contracted at the State level it is assumed that the allocation basis would not apply.

ABCD