❓ Dr. Hames asks about health expenditure, inflation, and budget adjustments for various health services. The answer provides context on budget fluctuations and transfers, making direct comparisons difficult.
AnsweredQoN 1495Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) total terms; and (c) health inflation terms for both the cash and total terms?
(c) health inflation terms for both the cash and total terms?
(c) health inflation terms for both the cash and total terms?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
18 October 2006
Responded by
Minister for Health
Response time
28 days
I attach a table [tabled paper_____] indicating the actual 2005-06 expenditure and current budgeted 2006-07 expenditure of the North Metropolitan Area Health Service (NMAHS), South Metropolitan Area Health Service (SMAHS), and the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). The total cost of service identifies the gross expenditure on service provision. The State's contribution to the total cost of service in the form of cash appropriation is also indicated. In comparing actual expenditure in 2005-06 with budgeted expenditure in 2006?07, it is important to note that the budgets of individual health services are adjusted during the course of each year by additional funding held by the Department of Health in respect of approved initiatives, such as the Mental Health Strategy 2004-07 and health reform initiatives. Also, additional expenditure by health services may be authorised during the course of the year to match increases in revenue received from the Commonwealth Government and additional own source revenue that may be generated by health services through patient fees and charges. Budget settings in 2005-06 were also affected by a number of significant service and function transfers which impact on the making of meaningful comparisons between years. Material transfers included the transfer of management responsibility for Royal Perth Hospital from the NMAHS to the SMAHS, and the establishment of PathWest and the Health Corporate Network. By way of illustrative example, the 2005-06 budget allocation of the NMAHS at September 2005 was $1,141.7 million compared to actual expenditure for the year of $689.2 million. To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
In comparing actual expenditure in 2005-06 with budgeted expenditure in 2006?07, it is important to note that the budgets of individual health services are adjusted during the course of each year by additional funding held by the Department of Health in respect of approved initiatives, such as the Mental Health Strategy 2004-07 and health reform initiatives. Also, additional expenditure by health services may be authorised during the course of the year to match increases in revenue received from the Commonwealth Government and additional own source revenue that may be generated by health services through patient fees and charges. Budget settings in 2005-06 were also affected by a number of significant service and function transfers which impact on the making of meaningful comparisons between years. Material transfers included the transfer of management responsibility for Royal Perth Hospital from the NMAHS to the SMAHS, and the establishment of PathWest and the Health Corporate Network. By way of illustrative example, the 2005-06 budget allocation of the NMAHS at September 2005 was $1,141.7 million compared to actual expenditure for the year of $689.2 million. To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
Budget settings in 2005-06 were also affected by a number of significant service and function transfers which impact on the making of meaningful comparisons between years. Material transfers included the transfer of management responsibility for Royal Perth Hospital from the NMAHS to the SMAHS, and the establishment of PathWest and the Health Corporate Network. By way of illustrative example, the 2005-06 budget allocation of the NMAHS at September 2005 was $1,141.7 million compared to actual expenditure for the year of $689.2 million. To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
(2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
(3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
In comparing actual expenditure in 2005-06 with budgeted expenditure in 2006?07, it is important to note that the budgets of individual health services are adjusted during the course of each year by additional funding held by the Department of Health in respect of approved initiatives, such as the Mental Health Strategy 2004-07 and health reform initiatives. Also, additional expenditure by health services may be authorised during the course of the year to match increases in revenue received from the Commonwealth Government and additional own source revenue that may be generated by health services through patient fees and charges. Budget settings in 2005-06 were also affected by a number of significant service and function transfers which impact on the making of meaningful comparisons between years. Material transfers included the transfer of management responsibility for Royal Perth Hospital from the NMAHS to the SMAHS, and the establishment of PathWest and the Health Corporate Network. By way of illustrative example, the 2005-06 budget allocation of the NMAHS at September 2005 was $1,141.7 million compared to actual expenditure for the year of $689.2 million. To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
Budget settings in 2005-06 were also affected by a number of significant service and function transfers which impact on the making of meaningful comparisons between years. Material transfers included the transfer of management responsibility for Royal Perth Hospital from the NMAHS to the SMAHS, and the establishment of PathWest and the Health Corporate Network. By way of illustrative example, the 2005-06 budget allocation of the NMAHS at September 2005 was $1,141.7 million compared to actual expenditure for the year of $689.2 million. To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
To further illustrate the impact of in-year budget movements on expenditure comparisons, I refer to the budgets of the WACHS and South West Health Service (SWHS) which, unlike metropolitan health services, were not materially impacted by the service and function transfers referred to above. The budgets of the two health services are taken together to be consistent with the tabled answer. The combined 2005-06 budget allocations of WACHS and SWHS at September 2005 totalled $593.2 million. The final approved 2005-06 budget allocation of the two health services was $609.7 million, a net increase of $16.5 million. Approved budget increases for the two health services during the course of 2005-06 totalled $64.5 million, offset by budget relocation elsewhere of $48.0 million; the latter mainly due to the transfer of budgets in respect of contracts with non-government service providers from WACHS and SWHS to the Department of Health. (2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
(2) Yes. (3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
(3) The Capital User Charge (CUC) is a charge levied by the Government on the value of net assets (assets less liabilities) used by agencies in the delivery of services. The purpose of the CUC is to recognise that there is a cost associated with holding assets, which should be recognised as part of the cost of providing services. The Department of Health receives an appropriation from Government each year to meet its operational costs, which includes the CUC. At a whole of government level, the CUC is budget neutral and does not impact on the availability of operational funding to deliver health services and programs.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.