Feasibility The changes proposed are feasible, i.e. definitional work, more While this option would be informed by data and fit well with the frequent of updates, more visible presentation. Improved PBFF, there are risks around the technical work both in the the model should be – modelling of diseconomies for community services and facilities amount of work involved and the challenge of determining the informed by actual data will rely on costs data and needs to be investigated further; the best set of explanatory variables for allocating funding For this and fit with presumption is that if modelling was possible in 2004, then an reason we rate this option as being riskier or bit worse’ on the based funding ‘a improved model should be possible now. feasibility dimension relatively to current modelling approaches. – Net effect: About the same Net effect: A bit worse Financial impacts The financial impacts on DHBs are largely unknown at this point, It is intended that the resulting financial impacts on DHBs would but the model would continue to be based on actual cost data. If be supported by the data and by a clear explanation of method. should be supported and the governance component is wholly discarded, the impact would We are not able to estimate the impacts ahead of the technical explained by clear and tend to be felt among smaller DHBs, with rural adjuster funding work being undertaken, but it would be expected that DHBs that robust evidence being reduced by approximately by $2 million per annum for each currently receive facility diseconomy payments would instead of the five smallest boards. receive a more general amount that, ideally, approximates those payments without being tied to specific sites. Net effect: Not able to be determined Net effect: Not able to be determined Key to symbols overall assessment relative to the current model – About the Not able to be Much worse A bit worse A bit better Much better same determined
Feasibility the model should be informed by actual data and fit with funding The changes proposed are feasible, i.e. definitional work, more frequent of updates, more visible presentation. Improved modelling of diseconomies for community services and facilities will rely on costs data and needs to be investigated further; the presumption is that if modelling was possible in 2004, then an improved model should be possible now. Net effect: About the same While this option would be informed by data and fit well with the PBFF, there are risks around the technical work – both in the amount of work involved and the challenge of determining the best set of explanatory variables for allocating funding For this reason we rate this option as being riskier or ‘a bit worse’ on the feasibility dimension – relatively to current modelling approaches. Net effect: A bit worse Financial impacts should be supported and explained by clear and robust evidence The financial impacts on DHBs are largely unknown at this point, but the model would continue to be based on actual cost data. If the governance component is wholly discarded, the impact would tend to be felt among smaller DHBs, with rural adjuster funding being reduced by approximately by $2 million per annum for each of the five smallest boards. Net effect: Not able to be determined It is intended that the resulting financial impacts on DHBs would be supported by the data and by a clear explanation of method. We are not able to estimate the impacts ahead of the technical work being undertaken, but it would be expected that DHBs that currently receive facility diseconomy payments would instead receive a more general amount that, ideally, approximates those payments without being tied to specific sites. Net effect: Not able to be determined Key to symbols – overall assessment relative to the current model Much worse A bit worse About the same A bit better Much better Not able to be determined based