You are in:
Improved access to public hospitals, acute and subacute care services and public dental services through targeted strategies and payments to state and territory governments
PDF printable version of Outcome 13 Acute Care (PDF 641 KB)
This chapter reports on the major activities undertaken by the department during the year, reporting against each of the major activities and performance indicators published in the Outcome 13 chapter of the 2010-11 Health and Ageing Portfolio Budget Statements (PB Statements) and the 2010-11 Health and Ageing Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES). It also includes a table summarising the estimated and actual expenditure for this Outcome.
Outcome 13 was managed in 2010-11 by the Acute Care Division, the Regulatory Policy and Governance Division and the Transition Office.
| Program Name | Program Objectives in 2010-11 |
|---|---|
| Program 13.1: Blood and Organ Donation Services |
|
| Program 13.2: Medical Indemnity |
|
| Program 13.3: Public Hospitals and Information |
|
The department worked collaboratively with the states and territories in 2010-11 to finalise Implementation Plans for all initiatives under the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospital Services (NPA IPHS).
As part of the Heads of Agreement – National Health Reform, governments agreed to establish an Expert Panel to review the implementation of the Elective Surgery Targets and National Access Guarantee and the National Access Target for emergency departments particularly, in regard to practical impediments and safety and quality issues related to their implementation and application. The Expert panel delivered its review findings and recommendations to COAG on 30 June 2011.
The department also worked with the states and territories to support the establishment of Local Hospital Networks. Under the Heads of Agreement – National Health Reform states and territories agreed to implement the first group of Local Hospital Networks by 1 July 2011 (NSW Networks became operational from 1 January 2011), with remaining Networks to be established by 1 July 2012. This new structure devolves hospital system management to the local level leading to increased autonomy and flexibility, enabling services to be more responsive to local needs. Local Hospital Network governing councils will engage with local clinicians and the community to improve hospital services.
| Quantitative KPI: | Percentage of eligible Australians in need of a bone marrow, cord blood or peripheral stem cell transplant who are able to access appropriate treatment. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 100% | 2010-11 Actual: | 100% |
| Result: Indicator met. | |||
| In 2010-11, 129 Australians accessed treatment through the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry and 142 Australians accessed treatment through international registries. Australia provided 133 bone marrow, cord blood or peripheral blood stem cell donations to overseas recipients. | |||
The department also funded the National Cord Blood Collection Network to collect, process, bank and release high quality, compatible umbilical cord blood stem cell units to Australian and international transplant centres for patients in need of a transplant. In 2010-11, 33 units were released for Australian patients and 99 units for international patients. The network facilitated the importation of 19 cord blood units from international registries, for transplantation into Australian patients for whom a suitably matched unit was not available from within the Australian inventory.
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Number of banked cord blood units. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | Total: 2,379 Indigenous: 129 | 2010-11 Actual: | Total: 1,880 Indigenous: 74 |
| Result: Deliverable substantially met. | |||
| In 2010-11, both the total number of cord blood units and the number collected from Indigenous donors were below targets. Total collections overall were below target due to staff shortages and budget pressures. The target for Indigenous donors has historically been challenging as only donations from the Royal Darwin Hospital collection centre are included. Under the new Clinical Services Plan collection processes will now target donations from Indigenous mothers at all Network centres. The department will work with the Network in 2011-12 to implement the Clinical Services Plan based on a revised budget and ensure that appropriate targets for Indigenous, ethnically diverse and total donations are met. | |||
The department supported the development of a new four-year Clinical Services Plan for the Network. The plan describes new cord blood collection and banking strategies to increase the proportion and number of high cell count units and units collected from Indigenous Australians and other ethnically and culturally diverse donors. Implementation of the plan will increase the likelihood of a compatible unit being available for Australian patients requiring a cord blood transplant.
The department continued to fund the construction of a state-of-the-art facility for the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria. When completed, Australians will have improved access to high quality tissue grafts for transplantation.
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Process established to assess funding proposals for new blood products or services. |
|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | An agreed framework was established in 2010-11. |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |
| The department adopted the Medical Services Advisory Committee as the health technology assessment mechanism to inform the Australian Government’s position in funding blood and blood products. This mechanism is consistent with Schedule 4 of the National Blood Agreement, as an evidence-based process for assessment and advice to the Australian Government to support decision making. | |
The department managed four research projects considering the factors driving Australia’s increasing demand for blood and blood products and the gaps in current knowledge. These projects are assisting the department to develop future strategies for better forecasting and demand management while focussing on improving patient safety and clinical outcomes.
The department continued to assist people with haemophilia, von Willebrand disease and related inheritable disorders, by funding the Haemophilia Foundation of Australia (HFA) for activities such as advocacy, education, and best practice advice on treatment. After reviewing the HFA’s operations, the department provided funding to assist the particular needs of younger people with bleeding disorders, particularly to assist the HFA to develop strategies to better respond to the needs of this group.
The department continued to provide funding, through the Health and Hospitals Fund, to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service to substantially complete construction of a new blood processing site in Melbourne, serving Victoria and Tasmania. 100% of funding has now been provided. The site will improve the efficiency and long-term capacity of the Blood Service to produce quality blood products for the Australian community.
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of the total contribution, made by the Australian Government, to the approved National Supply Plan and Budget. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 63% | 2010-11 Actual: | 63% | |
| Result: Deliverable met. | ||||
| This was achieved through contribution by the Australian Government to 63% of the National Supply Plan and Budget. | ||||
| Quantitative KPI: | Number of applications for funding of new blood products assessed within target timeframe. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | 80% | 2010-11 Actual: | Not applicable | |
| Result: Not applicable. | ||||
| No applications were referred for assessment during 2010-11. The implementation of the project was delayed due to extensive internal consultations and with the National Blood Authority and the MSAC Executive. Implementation of the project is now expected to occur in 2011-12 financial year. | ||||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Produce relevant and timely evidence‑based policy research. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Relevant evidence-based policy research produced in a timely manner. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| The department continued to provide high quality, relevant and timely advice to Ministers on organ and tissue donation, and blood issues based on evidence-based policy research. | |||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Stakeholders participate in program development through a range of avenues. | ||
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Stakeholders participated in program development through avenues such as regular consultative committees, conferences, stakeholder engagement forums, surveys, submissions on departmental discussion papers and meetings. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| The department worked with state and territory governments and sector representatives to improve access to blood and blood products and organ and tissue transplants by ensuring that policy directions consider the perspectives of all stakeholders. The department consulted stakeholders through the inaugural meeting of the Strategic Blood Policy Forum, regular meetings of the Jurisdictional Blood Committee, the Clinical Services Plan Reference Group for the National Cord Blood Collection Network (AusCord) and the reference group established to inform the four blood-related projects undertaken in 2010-11. | |||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of variance between actual and budgeted expenses. | ||
| 2010-11 Target: | ≤0.5% | 2010-11 Actual: | -1.1% |
| Result: Deliverable not met. | |||
| The Bone Marrow Transplant Program and Blood Sector Payments experienced underspends as expenditure is driven by demand, which was lower than anticipated for 2010-11. The underspend for the Managing Access to Blood Products Program is due to delays in implementation as a result of the extensive consultations required in the developments of the new arrangements. | |||
In 2010-11, the department continued to ensure the stability of the industry through regulation and ongoing monitoring of the operations and activities of medical indemnity insurers.
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Publish reports by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on medical indemnity. |
|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Timely provision and analysis of data. |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |
| The department worked closely with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and other Medical Indemnity Data Working Group stakeholders to assist in the publication of two reports on medical indemnity claims. | |
| Quantitative KPI: | Number of doctors that receive a premium subsidy support under the Premium Support Scheme. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 2,500 | 2010-11 Actual: | 2194 | |
| Result: Indicator met. | ||||
| This is a reduction from the 2,443 doctors who received a premium subsidy in 2009-10. A reduction in the number of doctors receiving a premium subsidy under the Premium Support Scheme generally indicates that medical indemnity premiums are more affordable. | ||||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of eligible applicants receiving a premium subsidy. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | 100% | 2010-11 Actual: | 100% | |
| Result: Deliverable met. | ||||
| All eligible doctors who applied for a premium subsidy received it. | ||||
| Quantitative KPI: | Percentage of eligible applicants receiving a premium subsidy. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | 100% | 2010-11 Actual: | 100% | |
| Result: Indicator met. | ||||
| All eligible doctors who applied for a premium subsidy received it. | ||||
In 2010-11 the department managed the contract with MIGA in conjunction with Medicare Australia. In the period to 30 June 2011 there were no claims made.
| Qualitative Deliverable: | An appropriate professional indemnity insurance product is available. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Product is available to eligible midwives from 1 July 2010. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| Eligible privately practising midwives were able to purchase Commonwealth supported professional indemnity insurance from MIGA from 1 July 2010. | |||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of eligible midwife applicants covered under the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme. | ||
| 2010-11 Target: | 100% | 2010-11 Actual: | 100% |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| All eligible privately practising midwives who applied for professional indemnity insurance through MIGA were offered cover. | |||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Produce relevant and timely evidence-based policy research. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Relevant evidence‑based policy research produced in a timely manner. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| The department provided policy advice on emerging trends in the medical indemnity industry to the Australian Government in a timely manner based on analysis and monitoring of qualitative data on medical indemnity trends and issues. | |||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Stakeholders participate in program development through a range of avenues. | ||
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Stakeholders participated in program development through avenues such as regular consultative meetings, conferences and stakeholder engagement. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| The department worked closely with Medicare Australia, the Australian Government Actuary and medical indemnity insurers to ensure that the medical indemnity program continued to meet its policy objectives. | |||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of variance between actual and budgeted expenses. | ||
| 2010-11 Target: | ≤0.5% | 2010-11 Actual: | -47.4% |
| Result: Deliverable not met. | |||
| While the deliverable was not met, the program objectives were substantially met. Medical Indemnity programs only respond to finalised claims when they are lodged by medical indemnity insurers. Total claims have been less than estimated by the Australian Government Actuary. Any remaining actuarially estimated liabilities are carried forward. | |||
In 2010-11, the department, in collaboration with the states and territories continued to manage the relevant components of the National Health Reform Agreement, the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform (NPA HHWR), the National Partnership on Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan (ESWLRP) and the introduction of new major reforms including implementation of the revised National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospitals (NPA IPHS).
Program 13.3 also aims to improve public access to dental services and health care services in north-western Tasmania, and to support improvement to the information available on hospital performance reporting and accountability.
| Quantitative KPI: | Percentage of patients presenting to a public hospital emergency department admitted, referred for treatment, or discharged within four hours, where clinically appropriate. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | Triage category 1 from 1 January 2011 | 2010-11 Actual: | Cannot be reported.128 |
| Result: Cannot be reported. | |||
| Assessment periods for the triage category-based Emergency Department four hour National Access Target are twelve month periods, commencing 1 January 2011. Performance data for the first assessment period are due to be provided to the COAG Reform Council by 28 February 2012. An Expert Panel was established as a result of agreement at the February 2011 COAG meeting to review the mechanisms through which Elective Surgery and Emergency Department targets and the National Access Guarantee are to be implemented and applied. The Panel provided its final report to COAG on 30 June 2011. Targets for emergency departments and elective surgery in the NPA IPHS were changed following the Expert Panel’s recommendations. | |||
Elective Surgery performance measures were introduced in 2010 as part of National Health Reform, similar to those for Emergencies Departments. Through the NPA IPHS the department has administered and managed the program of funding to states and territories, to build system capacity to work towards meeting these new measures and to improve patient access to elective surgery within the clinically recommended times.
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Elective surgery data reported on state and territory departments of health websites. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Elective surgery data publicly available in a timely manner. | |||
| Result: Deliverable substantially met. | ||||
| In 2010-11 as part of the NPA ESWLRP, a number of states and territories reported on elective surgery performance in public hospitals through their websites. States and territories have committed to maintaining effort in elective surgery and report on a quarterly basis. | ||||
| Quantitative KPI: | Percentage of public hospital elective surgery patients seen within clinically recommended times. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | N/A | 2010-11 Actual: | N/A | |
| Result: N/A | ||||
In 2010-11, elective surgery activities under the NPA IPHS were focused on the planning and establishment of projects to increase the percentage of public hospital elective surgery patients seen within clinically recommended times. Annual targets for achieving this increase are set out in the NPA, with the first round of state and territory performance data to be assessed against these targets by the department in early 2012. An Expert Panel was established as a result of agreement at the February 2011 COAG meeting to review the mechanisms through which elective surgery and emergency department targets and the National Access Guarantee are to be implemented and applied. The Panel provided its final report to COAG on 30 June 2011. Targets for emergency departments and elective surgery in the NPA IPHS were changed following the Expert Panel’s recommendations. | ||||
| Quantitative KPI: | Number of elective surgery procedures undertaken. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | 624,813 | 2010-11 Actual: | 659,685 | |
| Result: Indicator met. | ||||
| Under Stage Three of the Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan, states and territories are eligible to receive up to $300 million in facilitation and reward funding to improve the delivery of elective surgery and reduce the number of patients waiting longer than the clinically recommended times. As a result, the target for elective surgery procedures was exceeded by 34,872.129 | ||||
| Quantitative KPI: | Percentage increase in the volume of elective surgery performed across Australia. | |||
| 2010-11 Target: | 3.4% | 2010-11 Actual: | 5.2% | |
| Result: Indicator met. | ||||
| In 2010-11, the aim under Stage Three of the Elective Surgery Waiting List Reduction Plan was to increase the volume of elective surgery admissions across Australia and improve management of waiting lists, in particular overdue patients. States and territories were rewarded for achieving set targets under this stage, with the percentage increase exceeding the 2010-11 targets. | ||||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Meet the Commonwealth obligations under the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform implementation requirements. | |||
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Requirements are finalised as agreed in the National Partnership Agreement. | |||
| Result: Deliverable met. | ||||
| Funding of $750 million was provided in 2009 to reform and improve the functioning of emergency departments so that by 2012-13, 80% of emergency department presentations are seen within clinically recommended triage times as recommended by the Australian College of Emergency Medicine. A further measure is the requirement that by 2013-14, 95% of hospitals with an emergency department, report to the non-admitted emergency department care national minimum data set collection. The department continues to monitor progress of the projects funded under these initiatives as reflected in state and territory annual reports, which are published on each state and territory government’s website.130 Under the NPA HHWR, the Australian Government worked in close collaboration with state and territory governments, to monitor ongoing progress with implementation of subacute care and emergency department initiatives. | ||||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage increase in volume of subacute care services provided in community settings and public hospitals by the states and territories under the NPA HHWR. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 5% growth in services against state baselines. | 2010-11 Actual: | Data will be available by December 2011. |
| Result: Cannot be reported. | |||
| Data to determine whether this deliverable was met for 2010-11 will be available in December 2011 and will be reported on the Productivity Commission’s website.130 Based on quarterly reporting information for 2010-11 activities to expand subacute care are on track. | |||
| Qualitative KPI: | Enhanced provision and improved mix of subacute care services for hospital and out‑of‑hospital care. | ||
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | States and territories reporting demonstrates enhanced provision and improved mix of services. | ||
| Result: Indicator met. | |||
| States and territories are able to allocate and distribute their funding based on identified needs and gaps in subacute care within their respective state or territory. Many of the services will be provided outside of hospitals as most states and territories plan to increase their outpatient and community-based subacute services. | |||
In 2010-11, the department also managed the introduction of the New Subacute Beds Guarantee initiative under the NPA IPHS, which aims to deliver 1,316 new subacute beds and bed equivalent services throughout Australia, over the life of the Agreement.
The New Subacute Beds Guarantee contributes to increasing the efficiency of the health care system by ensuring patients are treated in the most appropriate settings, which reduces the pressure on public hospitals and in particular, public hospital emergency departments.
| Quantitative KPI: | Number subacute beds and bed equivalent services delivered by states and territories under the NPA IPHS. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 329 new subacute beds or bed equivalent services. | 2010-11 Actual: | Data will be available in November 2011. |
| Result: Cannot be reported. | |||
| A nationally consistent method to measure growth in subacute care was not finalised in 2010-11. The methods enables the conversion of bed equivalent services to bed numbers to allow for comparative reporting under this measure. Due to the delay, the reporting used to measure this deliverable will apply from November 2011. | |||
The website has been well received by the public and media. In the seven months since its launch MyHospitals has had a total of 265,123 visits. As at 30 June 2011, the website included information for 769 public hospitals and 211 private hospitals. Additional information will be added in the future providing patients with comparable information about the quality and safety of hospitals.
The department also worked with states and territories under the NPA IPHS to improve data collections and reporting on emergency department presentations, elective surgeries, subacute care and for non-admitted patients.
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Data development work, including creation of a new non-admitted outpatient care national minimum data set, to enable national reporting of performance. |
|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Non-admitted outpatient care national minimum data set implemented by 30 June 2011. |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |
| This deliverable was substantially met in the form of a patient level non-admitted outpatient care data set specification which was endorsed by the Health Reform Initiative Group for implementation from 1 July 2011. It is envisaged the data collection will be implemented as a national minimum data set in the future once data coverage issues are addressed under the ‘Activity Based Funding’ elements of the National Health Reforms. | |
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Release of average cost of procedures in public and private hospital activity. |
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | National Hospital Cost Data Collection 2010 released by June 2011. |
| Result: Deliverable not met. | |
| This deliverable was not met during 2010-11 because the cost data is being realigned to meet the needs of the ‘Activity Based Funding’ component of the National Health Reforms. The information is expected to be available in early 2012. | |
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Number of additional public dental visits delivered by the states and territories above agreed baseline. Measured by a reduction in state and territory public dental waiting list for priority groups assisted (Commencement date subject to Senate decision). | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Target: | 333,000 | 2010-11 Actual: | 0 |
| Result: Deliverable not met. | |||
| The planned closure of the previous government’s Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme did not proceed in 2010-11 with the consequence that funding for implementing the Commonwealth Dental Health Program was not available. | |||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Implement pilot projects for the delivery of mobile dental services to Indigenous populations in rural and regional areas. |
|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Consultation to identify pilot sites completed, and delivery of dental services commenced in a timely manner. |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |
| Pilot projects for 2010-11 have been implemented consistent with the consultant’s recommendations. | |
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Enhanced, safe and sustainable health care services for the people in the north-west region of Tasmania. |
|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Effective oversight of funding agreement for the management and operation of Mersey Community Hospital. |
| Result: Deliverable met. | |
| The Mersey Community Hospital continues to operate in accordance with the agreement between the Australian Government and the Tasmanian Government to ensure that people in the north-west region of Tasmania have access to safe, appropriate and sustainable health care services. The Hospital continues to provide all of the core services that are outlined in the agreement. | |
| Qualitative KPI: | Core clinical services that are specified in the Heads of Agreement for the management, operation and funding of the Mersey Community Hospital continue to be provided by the hospital. |
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Analysis of data provided under the Heads of Agreement concludes that the agreed services are being provided. |
| Result: Indicator met. | |
| Analysis of data provided to the department under the Heads of Agreement confirmed that the agreed services are being provided. | |
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Produce relevant and timely evidence‑based policy research. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Relevant evidence-based policy research produced in a timely manner. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| The department provided high quality and timely evidence based research and analysis to inform the Australian Government within the timeframes required. The department also supported the research, consultations and deliberations of the Expert Panel and the establishment of the Lead Clinician Groups initiative. | |||
| Qualitative Deliverable: | Stakeholders participate in program development through a range of avenues. | ||
| 2010-11 Reference Point: | Stakeholders participated in program development through such avenues as regular consultative committees, conferences, stakeholder engagement forums, surveys, submissions on departmental discussion papers and meetings. | ||
| Result: Deliverable met. | |||
| Stakeholders participated in the design and implementation of Lead Clinician Groups through a comprehensive, multi-staged stakeholder engagement and consultation process, which involved a series of written submissions, workshops, targeted interviews and round-table discussions. The department also provided secretariat support to an Expert Panel review to undertake a broad consultative process that included visits to each jurisdiction to meet with departmental officials and clinicians, a series of consumer focus groups held in metropolitan, regional and rural areas, a peak body consultation forum, and a written submission process. | |||
| Quantitative Deliverable: | Percentage of variance between actual and budgeted expenses. | ||
| 2010-11 Target: | ≤0.5% | 2010-11 Actual: | -13.5% |
| Result: Deliverable not met. | |||
| Extensive negotiations with the states and territories on the roles of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority and National Health Performance Authority and the passage of the legislations through Parliament had delayed the establishment of the authorities. The underspend will not impact on the authorities achieving the outcomes. | |||
(A) Budget Estimate1 2010-11 $’000 | (B) Actual 2010-11 $’000 | Variation (Column B minus Column A) $’000 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program 13.1: Blood and Organ Donation Services | |||
| Administered Expenses | |||
| 12,865 | 10,504 | (2,361) |
| |||
| 613,409 | 608,868 | (4,541) |
| Departmental Expenses | |||
| 11,055 | 10,844 | (211) |
| 327 | 307 | (20) |
| 262 | 331 | 69 |
| - | 1 | 1 |
| Total for Program 13.1 | 637,918 | 630,855 | (7,063) |
| Program 13.2: Medical Indemnity | |||
| Administered Expenses | |||
| 157 | 154 | (3) |
| |||
| 108,700 | 58,610 | (50,090) |
| |||
| 5,000 | - | (5,000) |
| |||
| 1,709 | - | (1,709) |
| Departmental Expenses | |||
| 4,204 | 4,124 | (80) |
| 124 | 117 | (7) |
| 100 | 126 | 26 |
| - | - | - |
| Total for Program 13.2 | 119,994 | 63,131 | (56,863) |
| Program 13.3: Public Hospitals and Information | |||
| Administered Expenses | |||
| 95,098 | 78,455 | (16,643) |
| Departmental Expenses | |||
| 29,526 | 28,960 | (566) |
| 872 | 820 | (52) |
| 700 | 883 | 183 |
| - | 2 | 2 |
| Total for Program 13.3 | 126,196 | 109,120 | (17,076) |
| Outcome 13 Totals by appropriation type | |||
| Administered Expenses | |||
| 108,120 | 89,113 | (19,007) |
| 728,818 | 667,478 | (61,340) |
| 1,709 | - | (1,709) |
| Departmental Expenses | |||
| 44,785 | 43,928 | (857) |
| 1,323 | 1,244 | (79) |
| 1,062 | 1,340 | 278 |
| - | 3 | 3 |
| Total expenses for Outcome 13 | 885,817 | 803,106 | (82,711) |
| Average Staffing Level (Number) | 281 | 271 | (10) |
1 Budgeted appropriations taken from the 2011-12 Health and Ageing Portfolio Budget Statements and re-aligned to the 2010-11 outcome structure. | |||
126 Available at: www.myhospitals.gov.au
127 AIHW Australian Hospital Statistics 2009-10, p98.
128 Assessment period (twelve months ending 31 December 2011) data will be available by March 2012.
129 Under the ESWLRP, performance data is calculated on a calendar year basis – the figures provided above represent performance in the 2010 calendar year (as per assessment periods 2 and 3 of the ESWLRP). These figures were utilised to calculate 2010-11 reward funding payments. Data for January to June 2011 has not been publicly released and is still subject to assessment by Health Ministers.
130 Available at: www.pc.gov.au/gsp/national-partnership/hospital-health-agreement
When accessing large documents (over 500 KB in size), it is recommended that the following procedure be used:
Attempting to open large documents within the browser window (by left-clicking)
may inhibit your ability to continue browsing while the document is
opening and/or lead to system problems.
To view PDF (Portable Document Format) documents, you will need to have a PDF reader installed on your computer. A number of PDF readers are available through the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) Web Guide website.
Produced by the Portfolio Strategies Division, Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing.
URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/annrpt/publishing.nsf/Content/annual-report-1011-toc~1011part2~1011part2.4~1011outcome13
If you would like to know more or give us your comments contact: annrep@health.gov.au