Evaluation of the consumer - directed care initiative - Final Report
4.2 Profile of participants - CDC
- Executive summary
- Glossary
1 Introduction- 2 The consumer-directed care initiative
- 3 Evaluation of the consumer-directed care initiative
4 Profile of participants and the supports they accessed- 5 Implementation and operation of the initiative
- 6 Impact of the initiative for CDC participants and their carers
- 7 Impact of the initiative for CDRC participants and the people they care for
- 8 Impact on providers and the broader service system
- 9 Cost assessment and cost-effectiveness of the initiative
- 10 Key findings
- 11 Lessons learnt and strategies for consideration
- Appendices
- References
The CDC participant group had a lesser proportion of participants aged 85+ and under 75 than the standard packaged care recipient group, with the majority aged 75-84. This was reflected in the CDCL group as well as the CDCH group (51 per cent and 42 per cent aged 75-84 respectively), though CDCHD participants were slightly older than the EACHD recipient group (46 per cent aged 85+ compared with 37 per cent of EACHD recipients). This is illustrated below.
Figure 3: Age of CDC participants compared with standard packaged care recipients
Source: 2nd CDC provider data collection (July-Sept 2011)
There was a reasonable representation of some special needs groups in the CDC participant group – in particular people from a culturally or linguistically diverse (CALD) background, people living in a rural or remote area, people who were financially or socially disadvantaged. There was also a reasonable representation of people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness among CDCL participants, which reflected the targeting of some CDCL packages specifically for this group.There was a relatively low representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, however – and less for standard packaged care. Similarly, the proportion of CALD participants was also less than for standard packaged care (except for CDCHD).
This is illustrated in the table below.Top of page
Table 1: Special needs group status – proportion of participants, CDC
 | CDCL | CDCH | CDCHD | Packaged care |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander | 2% | 2% | 0% | 3% |
| Culturally or linguistically diverse | 15% | 18% | 24% | 23% |
| Live in a rural/remote area | 19% | 12% | 7% | … |
| Financially/socially disadvantaged | 20% | 18% | 17% | … |
| Homeless or at risk of homelessness | 5% | 1% | 0% | … |
| Veteran or spouse of a Veteran | 2% | 3% | 2% | … |
| Care-leaver | 0% | 0% | 0% | … |
Source: 2nd CDC provider data collection (July-Sept 2011). Packaged care data relates to 2010-11, provided by the Department of Health and Ageing.
The proportion of participants who had received standard packaged care prior to commencing a CDC package was relatively low: 34 per cent of CDCL participants, 40 per cent of CDCH participants, and 44 per cent of CDCHD participants.A reasonable proportion of participants (around 25 per cent for CDCL and CDCH) had no prior experience with community care prior to commencing CDC.
Figure 4: Service history prior to commencing on a CDC package
Source: 2nd CDC provider data collection (July-Sept 2011)
The number of participants exiting CDC was quite low – 12 per cent during the period July-September 2011. The majority of participants exiting moved into residential care. There were no noticeable differences across care levels.Table 2: Number of participants exiting, by reason for exit – CDC
| Reason for exit | CDCL | CDCH | CDCHD | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Died | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 |
| Moved to residential aged care | 13 | 6 | 4 | 23 |
| Moved to standard (non-CDC) package | 5 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
| Other | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Total exits | 21 | 16 | 6 | 43 |
| Proportion of participants exiting | 11% | 13% | 11% | 12% |
Source: 2nd CDC provider data collection (July-Sept 2011)
Top of page