Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Penny Taylor, Associate Director Access Economics 04 June 2009 Future dementia care and evaluating the efficiency of the Dementia Initiative 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Penny Taylor, Associate Director Access Economics 04 June 2009 Future dementia care and evaluating the efficiency of the Dementia Initiative 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Penny Taylor, Associate Director Access Economics 04 June 2009 Future dementia care and evaluating the efficiency of the Dementia Initiative 1

2 Access Economics report for Alzheimer’s Australia 2 Making choices Future dementia care: projections, problems and preferences

3 InterGenerational Report 2:2007 3 IGR2: % population 65+ increases from 8.5% 1967 to 13.4% 2007 & 25.3% 2047

4 Dependency ratios 4 Dependency increases from 48.2% in 2007 to 90.9% by mid-century

5 Participation, productivity and cost effectiveness 5 Productivity Commission (2005) ageing report – government spending on health, aged care and pensions will be key drivers of future growth in government spending. – Plausible increases in fertility and net migration would have little impact on ageing trends. PC recommended: – Measures to raise productivity and labour participation – More cost-effective service provision, especially in health care* *(highly relevant to the evaluation of the Dementia Initiative)

6 Labour force participation 6 These findings have led to a Govt focus on improving labour force participation and productivity including among older people (55+) and women.

7 Primary carers 2003 7

8 2009 Budget fiscal strategy 8 The 2009-10 Budget fiscal strategy - once economic growth returns to above trend levels, hold real growth in spending to 2% pa until the budget returns to surplus. AE projections of population growth per annum 2008 to 2028:

9 Future dementia care 9 Demographic ageing will lead to an increase in the number and % of people who have dementia – In 2009, 1.1% of the population has dementia. By 2050, 2.8% of the population is projected to have dementia Implies a greater future need in Australia for dementia care services whilst at the same time, governments will have less capacity to pay Providing quality care for people with dementia will be a core issue

10 Access Economics project 10 1.investigate the current cost and staff resources allocated to dementia care (through literature, data and analysis) 2.investigate the future workforce for dementia care (through economic modelling and analysis) 3.investigate carers’ preferences in relation to future care arrangements (using a choice modelling survey)

11 Workforce allocated to dementia care 11 Formal paid care staff in RAC and community care (HACC, EACH) includes: – Direct care (nurses, physio etc) = 74% of wage costs – Other staff (managers, cooks etc) Unpaid volunteers who work in RAC facilities and community care Unpaid care provided by family, friends or neighbours (informal care)

12 Formal (paid) care for people with dementia 2008 12 Residential location – living in … People with dementia (pwd) % of pwd Hours of care providedFTEs Annual hours per pwd FTEs per pwd Community with no assistance85,12537%0000.0 Community with HACC41,39918%1.6 million941390.0 Community with CACP7,2913%5 million2,9096850.4 Community with EACH, EACHD3,3682%3.4 million2,0051,0230.6 RAC Low care (RCS 5-8)15,0617%20.4 million11,8821,3550.8 RAC High care (RCS1-4)75,10733%113.5 million66,0991,5120.9 Total227,350100%144 million83,8351,0120.6

13 Volunteers in RAC 13 – Based on ABS data, around 3.7 million hours per year provided by volunteers in RAC for dementia – 2,174 full time equivalents – Note – many volunteers also involved in HACC, and other community care programs, but extremely difficult to estimate quantum of this.

14 Unpaid informal care 14 StollzNow (2007) survey suggested most family and friends of pwd spent less than 5 hpw, but 18% spent 40+ hpw. Average was 16 hpw. The AE survey for this project found family carers spend on average 24.4 hpw and informal care is not just provided to pwd living in the community, but also to pwd living in RAC, and receiving community care. Confirmed by AIHW data for EACH and CACP. ABS SDAC data (small sample for dementia) suggested an average of 38 to 42 hours of informal care per week per person with dementia

15 Unpaid informal care 15 Used the AE survey estimate of 24.4 hours of informal care provided per week per person with dementia (as mid point) to estimate unpaid informal care hours. Estimated 203 million unpaid hours of care provided to people with dementia in 2008.

16 Value of care for people with dementia 2008 16 Type of careMillion hoursLOW $ millionHIGH $ million Unpaid informal care203.4881.25,523.5 Community care (paid)10.0248.6288.1 RAC (paid)133.93,641.05,064.3 RAC volunteers3.716.2 Total351 million hours$3,987 million$10,892 million

17 Second task in Making Choices report 17 Project the likely future use of dementia care and the supply of staff and unpaid carers providing various types of dementia care. Modelling was based on current dementia care policy and programs, and current rates of use of different types of care (including unpaid care). Projections are based only on demographic change (all else held constant)

18 Approach to projections of future dementia care 18 Future use of dementia care – Applied current usage rates for unpaid family care, community care and RAC to the projected dementia population – Projections of pwd by age and gender using 2003 prevalence rates by age/gender applied to demographic projections Future supply of dementia care – Supply of unpaid informal care based on the rate at which current population by age and gender supplies unpaid care. Note - Unpaid family care is provided to pwd in RAC as well as receiving community care (based on AIHW and AE survey) – Supply of community care based on growth in the population aged 70+ (consistent with Australian Government approach to aged care planning) – Supply of RAC workforce based on split between nurses and other staff Nurses modelled separately based on AE nurses workforce model Higher proportion of nurses in high care RAC than low care RAC Other RAC (non-nursing) staff grown at rate of growth of population aged 70+

19 Projections of gaps in dementia care (per pwd) 19

20 Projections of gaps in informal care 20 By 2029, excess demand of 6.6 hours per person with dementia per week

21 Projections of gaps in RAC 21 High care RAC - by 2029, excess demand of 3.8 hours per pwd per week (92,500 FTEs) Low care RAC – by 2029, excess demand of 0.4 hours pwd per week (9,000 FTEs)

22 3 rd task in Making Choices Report 22 The dementia care workforce requires urgent planning AE undertook a choice modelling survey to determine the characteristics of paid care that are valued most Results can be used to inform us about service delivery options that are preferred by consumers (people with dementia and their carers). We can then direct future resources to those areas that are valued most.

23 Choice modelling survey 23 To determine the attributes current and former informal carers value, two choice modelling experiments were used – One for community care and the other for residential care Each experiment presents respondents with a series of dementia care scenarios and asks them to choose their most preferred option Value of alternative dementia care services are implicitly revealed through the choices respondents make.

24 24 Sample statistics

25 25 Sample statistics

26 26 Sample statistics

27 Attributes/levels - community care 27 General home support services ( 1 service/week; 2/week; 1/fortnight; or not available) Dementia care case worker (o rganise individualised care program incl community care; or not available) Qualified person who can provide support for a specific need ( Not available; or 1/month; 1/fortnight; 1/week) Community centres that offer counselling, recreational activities, education, and info services ( available during working week and w/e; only during week; only w/e; or not available) Helpline that can provide advice and referral services ( available 24hrs; 7am-10pm; working hrs; or not available) Emotional support for those providing care (none; phone; group; or individual) Respite care (available regularly for extended periods; regularly for part of day only; emergencies special events only; not available) Out-of-pocket costs ($0/week; $25/week; $50/week; $75/week)

28 28

29 Attributes/levels RAC 29 Distance between home of person providing care and RAC facility (10 mins away; 30 mins; 60 mins; 90 mins) RAC facility provides (all private; some private; limited private; no private) Accommodate cultural backgrounds (individual; group; special occasions only; never) Skills of the staff (specialist dementia; legal minimum) Capacity to provide services for different stages of dementia (All stages; early to moderate only) Visiting hours (fully flexible+overnight; fully flexible; 7am-10pm; 8am- 11am + 5pm-8pm) Accommodation bond ($100,000; $200,000; $300,000; $400,000) Ongoing cost for accommodation ($30/day; $60; $90; $120)

30 30

31 31 Findings- choice in care provision

32 32 Survey findings

33 33 Survey findings

34 The survey results represent the average 34 The results represent ‘average’ preferences across all respondents. In reality, each caring situation is different so preferences across individuals will vary. Preferences depend on factors such as: – Severity of dementia – Exposure the range of formal care services available Given the individuality of care situations and experiences with dementia care services across Australia, it is likely a wide range of preferences have been expressed within the choice modelling survey. However, the results represent average preferences for individual service characteristics.

35 35 Demand for community care

36 36 Community care rankings

37 37 Demand for RAC

38 38 Demand for RAC

39 39 Demand for RAC

40 40 Demand for RAC

41 41 Demand for RAC

42 42 Demand for RAC

43 43 Demand for RAC

44 44 RAC rankings

45 Implications … 45 Eight major issues need to be addressed – Aged care planning ratios – Balance of community and residential – Information and consumer support – Quality dementia care – Workforce options for training – Quality care for special needs groups – Research – Develop new financing mechanisms

46 The balance of community and residential care services 46 Carers and people with dementia value choice. Economic argument for consumer sovereignty - consumers generally better positioned to select the care appropriate to their circumstances. More flexibility in community and respite care services to respond to the range of needs

47 Information and consumer support 47 Carers and people with dementia are required to make complex choices. They need to be well informed and supported through Aged Care Assessment Teams and organisations such as Alzheimer's Australia Access to information and carer support should be enhanced and expanded through the National Dementia Support Program and the Commonwealth Respite and Carelink Centres.

48 Quality dementia care 48 The consistency and coverage of dementia skills training needs to be improved by extending access to dementia training for formal and family carers, promoting pervasive understanding of quality person-centred dementia care, and monitoring outcomes

49 Workforce options for carers 49 improved access to quality long day respite care (potentially through greater prioritisation of dementia respite services in the National Carers Respite Program); and greater workplace flexibility (eg carer leave entitlements, work-based aged care).

50 Special needs groups 50 Special needs groups are disadvantaged in accessing quality dementia care: Younger people with dementia; Indigenous people; people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds; those with dementia and psychiatric issues who fall between the aged care and mental health systems; and those in rural and remote areas.

51 Research 51 The potential for reducing the incidence, prevalence and disability burden of dementia in the longer term will be dependent on research and dementia risk reduction. It is recommended that: – investment in dementia research and prevention should continue to be expanded; and – awareness of dementia risk reduction is promoted eg, through the Mind your Mind program.

52 Develop new financing mechanisms 52 Future funding of care implies higher taxation (since higher debt is not sustainable long term), service reductions (unlikely to be preferred), or an increase in private provisioning for care services. It will become increasingly important for people with the capacity to pay (through accumulated household wealth) to do so, allowing the government to continue to provide a safety net for those without the financial means to cover their dementia care costs.

53 Evaluation of the Dementia Initiative 53 2005 Australian Government Budget Dementia Initiative – Measure 1 - Dementia – A National Health Priority ($70.5 million) – additional research, improved care initiatives and early intervention programs. – Measure 2 – EACHD ($225.1 million) – 2,000 dementia specific EACH places. – Measure 3 – Training to Care for People with Dementia Program ($25 million) – additional dementia specific training for up to 9,000 aged care workers, and up to 7,000 carers and community workers. AE was part of the consortium commissioned by the Australian Government to undertake an evaluation of the National Dementia Initiative from March 06 to May 09. Two key questions: – What effect the Dementia Initiative has had on consumers; that is, people with dementia and their carers – What added value has been given to current dementia care in Australia as a result of the activities funded by the Dementia Initiative.

54 Access Economics role 54 Efficiency – did DI programs provide value for money? Undertake CBA/CEA Build an economic model for DOHA to undertake further analysis Costs = full costs of delivery of DI including development, delivery and evaluation Benefits = health system costs (hospitals, drugs etc); RAC and community care; unpaid family care; productivity losses; burden of disease.

55 Economic evaluation 55 7 projects evaluated (In-Depth Evaluations) Varied nature of projects and data availability (or lack thereof) led to a range of evaluation metrics being used. Outputs or benefits measured were not comparable across projects. Eg. QALYs Number of publications Number of students trained Improvement in work efficiency Recommendation arising – adoption of an agreed QoL metric from roll-out phase of future projects

56 Measure 1 56 NDSP, DBMAS, DTSCs and DCRC Economic data comprised: – cost information provided from program returns and acquittals; and – outcome data from various sources. Example NDSP – Cost data from financial reports and funding agreements – Outcome data from surveys and progress reports – Benchmarked KPIs against relevant comparators Example DBMAS – Cost data from financial reports and funding agreements – Outcome data from survey of RAC facilities - responses based on Likert scale converted to DALYs and reported $ per DALY averted

57 Measure 1 example NDSP 57 Sub-initiative and approx cost (1 Jan 07 to 1 Jul 09 - $2008-09) KPI Helpline (over $2million) $/phone call $/satisfied caller Dementia and Memory Community Centres and Memory Vans (under $7 million) $/visitor $/session $/satisfied participant Early intervention/counselling (over $7 million)$/session $/satisfied participant Information, awareness, education & training (under $5 million) $/session $/participant $/satisfied participant

58 Measure 2 EACH-D 58 Economic and health outcome data were collected. o Costs include government expenditure on packages, fees paid by package recipients, productivity costs for informal carers and changes to health system costs. o Benefits include improvements to the quality of life of people with dementia and their informal carers. Some benefits difficult to measure (e.g. providing choice of care setting). EACHD was compared to Residential Aged Care – the alternative care-pathway for pwd needing a high level of care.

59 Measure 3 Dementia Caring Pilot Evaluated using a combination of CEA and CUA. Outcome measures: – number of skills sessions that were run, – the number of participants in skills sessions, – and the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) measure of participant wellbeing pre and post skills training. The costs: – the program expenditure, and – the cost to participants, which included attendance time and travel costs. 59

60 Measure 3 Dementia care essentials Evaluated using Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Key outcomes/benefits – Workload efficiency (ability of workers to deal with their workload) – Work quality (workers’ levels of stress, health and quality of life) – Number of students trained Costs – Training providers costs (total, and broken down into staffing / equipment and capital/ operations/other). – Participant costs (time and travel) Benefit data were extracted from a survey of training participants on the likely impact on their workload before and after training. 60

61 Dynamic economic model 61

62 Thank you 62

Download ppt "Penny Taylor, Associate Director Access Economics 04 June 2009 Future dementia care and evaluating the efficiency of the Dementia Initiative 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google