(England) funds (with broker/ employment of facilitator) carers funds United Direct Purchase of States care payment care agency (various (cash and for planning (with services or (‘cash care’) states) counselling) agency/ employment of broker). carers (including relatives) United In-Home Direct Purchase of States Supportive payment care agency (California) Services for planning (with services or (‘cash care’) (IHSS) agency/ employment of broker). carers (including relatives) United Home and Direct Purchase of states Payment care agency (Washington Services for Co-managed planning (with services or (‘cash care’) State) funds agency/ employment of broker). carers (including relatives) United Family Care States Program (Wisconsin) care agency planning services Source: Information in this table has been primarily drawn from the following sources: Glendinning 2008, Hardy 2008, Kodner 2003, Lundsgaard 2005, Productivity Commission 2011, Tilly, Wiener and Evans Cuellar 2000. The literature indicates that CDC programs based on direct payment models are also operating in Israel, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and Norway, but insufficient descriptive information was identified to include them in this summary. Table A2: Comparison of various CDC models evaluated outcomes – Jurisdiction Evaluation Consumer Carer Cost Areas to details outcomes outcomes effectiveness improve Australia Direct High - - - (Victoria) payments trial satisfaction (2007) UCCO CDC High Variable - Social trial (2009) satisfaction satisfaction inclusion of (felt isolated carers over time) Australia LAC review High - Cost effective Tailoring for (WA) (2003) satisfaction (but compared to CALD and lower for CALD/ agency Indigenous
(England) funds funds (with broker/ facilitator) employment of carers United States (various states) care (cash and counselling) (‘cash for care’) Direct payment care planning (with agency/ broker). Purchase of agency services or employment of carers (including relatives) United States (California) In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) (‘cash for care’) Direct payment care planning (with agency/ broker). Purchase of agency services or employment of carers (including relatives) United states (Washington State) Home and Services (‘cash for care’) Direct Payment Co-managed funds care planning (with agency/ broker). Purchase of agency services or employment of carers (including relatives) United States (Wisconsin) Family Care Program care planning agency services Source: Information in this table has been primarily drawn from the following sources: Glendinning 2008, Hardy 2008, Kodner 2003, Lundsgaard 2005, Productivity Commission 2011, Tilly, Wiener and Evans Cuellar 2000. The literature indicates that CDC programs based on direct payment models are also operating in Israel, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and Norway, but insufficient descriptive information was identified to include them in this summary. Table A2: Comparison of various CDC models – evaluated outcomes Jurisdiction Evaluation details Consumer outcomes Carer outcomes Cost effectiveness Areas to improve Australia (Victoria) Direct payments trial (2007) High satisfaction - - - UCCO CDC trial (2009) High satisfaction Variable satisfaction (felt isolated over time) - Social inclusion of carers Australia (WA) LAC review (2003) High satisfaction (but lower for CALD/ - Cost effective compared to agency Tailoring for CALD and Indigenous
evaluation-of-the-consumer-directed-care-initiative-final-report.docx