7 More about other groups Considers factors contributing to or of providers associated with groups of providers: government regional influences recipients of viability supplement impact of supported resident remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) and 8 Recent changes on Outlines the funding Services and (MPS) financing providers financial performance changes since 2013 that are expected to have an impact on future operating financial performance 9 Providers’ expansion plans Analyses the feedback from survey respondents on their future plans 10 Earnings lost on Provides an overview of the impact on surplus liquidity OEBITDA of relatively high liquidity attributable to lump sum accommodation liabilities held in liquid investments Appendix 1 Details of the Details the basis of and limitations quantitative analysis to our quantitative analysis Appendix 2 Details of the Background on how the qualitative qualitative analysis survey was developed and administered, including an analysis of the participants Appendix 3 Results of the Provides background on the analysis multivariate analysis and findings Appendix 4 Qualitative survey Contains a complete list of survey questions and an analysis of the responses Limitations of Our Analysis The quantitative analysis relies extensively on data held by DSS. This data includes: de-identified GPFR data provided by approved providers  service-level information pertaining to location, ownership and care  subsidy-related information  information about approved places being allocated and brought online.  Our quantitative analysis is on a single year’s data. We examined the consistency of providers’ quartile performance using EBITDA and OEBITDA. While financial performance measured by OEBITDA results in greater consistency of ranking, providers’ financial performance rankings do change over time. Providers with better financial performance tend to exhibit more consistency relative to providers with lower financial performance as measured by OEBITDA. ACFA recently completed a detailed review of financial data that DSS had collected through GPFRs. Among other things, ACFA noted the limited quality and usability of the GPFR data. As our quantitative analysis was primarily based on this GPFR data, our work is also constrained by the limitations of this data. Throughout this report we have
7 More about other groups of providers Considers factors contributing to or associated with groups of providers: government regional influences recipients of viability supplement impact of supported resident remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) and Services (MPS) providers 8 Recent changes on financial performance Outlines the funding and financing changes since 2013 that are expected to have an impact on future operating financial performance 9 Providers’ expansion plans Analyses the feedback from survey respondents on their future plans 10 Earnings lost on surplus liquidity Provides an overview of the impact on OEBITDA of relatively high liquidity attributable to lump sum accommodation liabilities held in liquid investments Appendix 1 Details of the quantitative analysis Details the basis of and limitations to our quantitative analysis Appendix 2 Details of the qualitative analysis Background on how the qualitative survey was developed and administered, including an analysis of the participants Appendix 3 Results of the multivariate analysis Provides background on the analysis and findings Appendix 4 Qualitative survey Contains a complete list of survey questions and an analysis of the responses Limitations of Our Analysis The quantitative analysis relies extensively on data held by DSS. This data includes:  de-identified GPFR data provided by approved providers  service-level information pertaining to location, ownership and care  subsidy-related information  information about approved places being allocated and brought online. Our quantitative analysis is on a single year’s data. We examined the consistency of providers’ quartile performance using EBITDA and OEBITDA. While financial performance measured by OEBITDA results in greater consistency of ranking, providers’ financial performance rankings do change over time. Providers with better financial performance tend to exhibit more consistency relative to providers with lower financial performance as measured by OEBITDA. ACFA recently completed a detailed review of financial data that DSS had collected through GPFRs. Among other things, ACFA noted the limited quality and usability of the GPFR data. As our quantitative analysis was primarily based on this GPFR data, our work is also constrained by the limitations of this data. Throughout this report we have
rsm_report_for_online_publishing.docx