Process of Funding Acute Inpatient Services Report

Executive Summary

There are initiatives to execute fundamental health care reforms within Australia. Activity-Based Funding, (ABF) for health services in Australia is presently notable. The “National Reform Agreement, 2011” is in practice. Apart from this, the COAG is another viable option. The ABF follows the operating guidelines of other pre-existing funding mechanisms (Duckett & Willcox, 2011). It is important to manage the dispensation of acute health services. There are notable transformations in the processes of emergency medical services funding. These are eminent both locally in Australia and within the global environment. The concept of health care funding provides the basis for this report. Resource allocation for acute medical inpatient services is critical. There is a need for the review of various state or federal agencies in these resource allocation processes. These include some of the basic aims of the report.

Introduction

Proper healthcare management is central to achieving adequate health. This is applicable both globally and within particular nations or regions. It is vital to analyze the resource allocation processes within various health care units. Since dispensation of health care services is critical, their funding options require review (Gillies, 2003). The aim of this report is to analyze the different funding alternatives. This is for the general health care system as well as aged care within Australia. Critical examples are from specific global trends of health care funding. It also examines the funding mechanisms for the acute inpatient health processes. There is the elucidation of the roles of other state agencies in this funding process. Furthermore, the report compares this funding process with the previous ones. There are recommendations on the efficiency of this process. There is the provision of valid reasons for these recommendations.

The Process of Funding Acute Inpatient Services

Australia presently struggles to achieve critical health care funding reforms. One of the targets in the proposal is to engage the partial acquisition of finances from the commonwealth. Particularly, this applies to public hospitals. Specifically, the acute inpatient services have special attention in these initiatives. One of the processes involves the payment of these hospitals through the “efficient price” methodology. This is preferred for every separation (Jackson, Nghiem, Rowell, Jorm & Wakefield, 2011). Indicatively, it includes the expenses as well s the benefits accrued from the acute inpatient services. There are extensive investigations on the best funding approaches for emergency medical and aged health care services. An example is the “risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness,” (RAC-E) approach (CoA, 2010). Apart from this, there are present methodologies that apply critical analytic frameworks. This approximates the lifetime expenses for the various patients.

Standardization procedures occur through the correlation of the experiential and probable values. Observably, an examination of consistent expenditures and impacts within various hospitals remains significant. This is because they reveal the model health facilities. From these facilities, the responsible agencies are able to define or draw appropriate costs (Healy, 2011). This process is applicable in both acute inpatient health services and aged care health services. There are eminent fragmentations in the dispensation and resource allocation of health services within Australia. The analysis of various budgetary reports, including the national health care expenditure, is important. It indicates huge disparities and escalating costs. Public and private partnerships are widely applicable in meeting both the inpatient health care costs and the aged care (NHHRC, 2009). Various state and federal bodies monitor the process of healthcare funding within Australia. The ABF ensures effective use of the common citizens’ taxes. The general objective is to provide high-quality and transformative health services.

Evidently, most Australian states presently practice this process. ABF is a more contemporary and effective methodology applicable in funding public hospitals within most states in Australia. Ideally, the acute inpatient health services get funding. However, this follows a rational evaluation procedure (Willis, Reynolds & Keleher, 2009). Majorly, the funding depends on the probable and expected undertaking. The process is important and transformative in several ways. For instance, it offers a lucid and transparent system. There is a balance between government allocation of financial resources and the critical services provided to all clients. This also includes the general community and the elderly persons.

The national framework for health care resource allocation provides critical guidelines. It outlines policies for financial management in emergencies (Novak & Judah, 2011). There is an evident involvement of health insurance agencies. This follows individual patient commitment. Calculations normally assume a “cost-back cut” process. There are notable basic healthcare services covered under this funding programme. The programme all operations within the hospitals and the emergency undertakings. This is an important healthcare funding methodology set for adoption within most states.

The Role of the Various State and Federal Organisations in the Funding Process

Most state and federal agencies play a significant role in the present healthcare funding process in Australia. These agencies are important in the implementation and governance of the ABF system. Apart from this, they also act as oversight authorities in the funding process. The “Independent Hospital Pricing Authority,” (IHPA) is one of the most important agencies. It is involved in the management and evaluation of all the ABF processes. This is within all relevant states. The agency has local oversight authorities within all states implementing the ABF process (Street & Maynard, 2007). It also collaborates with other crucial development agencies. It develops and indicates the federal categories for all the public health facilities. In this context, it identifies the hospitals set to be beneficiaries of ABF. It also identifies the “national efficient prices”. The agencies evaluate the hospitals fit to benefit from the commonwealth kitty. They also develop the process for block funding for various selected hospitals.

How the Funding Process Is Different From the Earlier Funding Model

The funding mechanism is unique from the previous systems in many ways. For instance, it has various monitoring agencies. These include the IHPA. These agencies are important in ensuring the successful evaluation of the uses of allocated funds. Unlike in the past funding mechanisms, a more rational and planned system is used in the identification of funding areas. The system also operates under strict management and transparency principles. It is more comprehensive, covering all important operations within healthcare delivery. There is an eminent engagement of the aged care services. This is unlike the previous funding mechanisms (PC, 2006). Clear operational guidelines are set for the management of this funding mechanism. It also provides attention to previously neglected groups of patients and healthcare operations. It offers priority to the neediest units (Johnson & Stoskopf, 2010). Observably, the collaboration of the system with the commonwealth project remains unique. This collaboration is important in many ways. For example, it allows for partial funding of health services by the commonwealth development partners. This process follows a thorough needs assessment.

Explanation of the Reasons Why the Funding Processes Will Be Better

The funding process is preferable and better for all the healthcare providers in Australia. The mechanism operates under favorable principles. Devolution of health financing is critical. Particularly, this is due to the importance of “Primary Health Care,” (PHC) (Sullivan-Marx, 2010). The funding system focuses on the patient, family as well as other caregivers. This is important for achieving a general state of well-being. Notably, there is a transparent link of the funding process to the dispensation of health services. This is a critical tool for monitoring the transparency of various health institutions. The system enables an effective process of managing performance. Apart from this, there is room for clinical headship and collaboration within all levels. The system helps in the consistent management of risks within the healthcare system. Generally, it is better than other previous approaches.

Conclusion

Healthcare financing is a global challenge. There are notable loopholes within various healthcare financing systems in different nations. The developing world provides a typical example. Australia has systematically transformed the funding systems for its health services. There are eminent considerations for aged care and inpatient emergency care services. The adoption of the ABF system is to counteract these notable challenges. Strong policies back the operation of the ABF system. This is observable, particularly, with the establishment of monitoring agencies. It is obvious that the present system is better. It is more comprehensive, transparent, and policy-oriented. Additional research on other funding options is appropriate.

References

CoA, (Commonwealth of Australia), (2010). National health and hospital network for Australia’s future. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Duckett, S. & Willcox, S. (2011). The Australian health care system. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Gillies, A. (2003). What makes a good healthcare system ?: Comparisons, values, drivers. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press.

Healy, J. (2011). Improving health care safety and quality: Reluctant regulators. Farnham: Ashgate.

Jackson, T., Nghiem, H. S., Rowell, D., Jorm, C. & Wakefield, J. (2011). Marginal costs of hospital-acquired conditions: Information for priority-setting for patient safety pprogramsand research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 16(3), 141-146.

Johnson, J. A. & Stoskopf, C. H. (2010). Comparative health systems: Global perspectives. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

NHHRC, (National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission), (2009). A healthier future for all Australians: Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Novak, J., & Judah, A. (2011). Towards a health productivity reform agenda for Australia. South Melbourne: Australian Centre for Health Research.

PC, (Productivity Commission), (2006). Potential benefits of the National Reform Agenda, Report to the Council of Australian Governments. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Street, A. & Maynard, A. (2007). Activity based financing in England: the need for continual refinement of payment by results. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 2(4), 419-427.

Sullivan-Marx, E. (2010). Nurse practitioners: The evolution and future of advanced practice. New York, NY: Springer Pub.

Willis, E., Reynolds, L. & Keleher, H. (2009). Understanding the Australian health care system. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.