❓ Question on Notice regarding the potential implementation of a New Zealand-style long-term care scheme for catastrophically injured individuals in Western Australia, focusing on cost implications, stakeholder consultation, and funding responsibilities. The answer outlines the stages of investigation and considerations by the Ministerial Council.
AnsweredQoN 1823Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) if yes, what was the outcome of the report and will the report be tabled; (c) has any evaluation been conducted on the New Zealand scheme and how those costs would translate to Australia and in particular Western Australia; (d) is the Minister aware that the New Zealand scheme impacts on the payment levels of private insurance claims; (e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(c) has any evaluation been conducted on the New Zealand scheme and how those costs would translate to Australia and in particular Western Australia; (d) is the Minister aware that the New Zealand scheme impacts on the payment levels of private insurance claims; (e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(d) is the Minister aware that the New Zealand scheme impacts on the payment levels of private insurance claims; (e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
At the request of the Ministerial Council on Insurance Issues and the Heads of Treasuries, the Insurance Issues Working Group established a Task Force to examine the issue of long-term care (LTC) for the catastrophically injured in Australia. Stage 1 of the project involved: - collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
Stage 1 of the project involved: - collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(c) has any evaluation been conducted on the New Zealand scheme and how those costs would translate to Australia and in particular Western Australia; (d) is the Minister aware that the New Zealand scheme impacts on the payment levels of private insurance claims; (e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(d) is the Minister aware that the New Zealand scheme impacts on the payment levels of private insurance claims; (e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(e) what are the ‘social welfare and insurance savings’ that were alluded to in the article; (f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(f) how was it arrived at that these savings would occur; (g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(g) was there any outcome or direction, on this issue, arriving out of the meeting of State Ministers held in Adelaide recently; (h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(h) have any talks been conducted with ‘stake holders’ into this proposal; (i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(i) if yes, what are the names and qualifications of the persons who attended; and (j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
(j) will this proposed system move the funding requirements, for Disability Services, from the State Government to the Federal Government?
At the request of the Ministerial Council on Insurance Issues and the Heads of Treasuries, the Insurance Issues Working Group established a Task Force to examine the issue of long-term care (LTC) for the catastrophically injured in Australia. Stage 1 of the project involved: - collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
Stage 1 of the project involved: - collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs; - determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and - determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
- determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC. Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers. (d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(d) Yes. (e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping). (f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia. (g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart. (h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(i) Not applicable. (j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
(j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 October 2003
Response time
50 days
(a) – (c)
At the request of the Ministerial Council on Insurance Issues and the Heads of Treasuries, the Insurance Issues Working Group established a Task Force to examine the issue of long-term care (LTC) for the catastrophically injured in Australia.
Stage 1 of the project involved:
- collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs;
- determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and
- determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC.
Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
(d) Yes.
(e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping).
(f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia.
(g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart.
(h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination.
(i) Not applicable.
(j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
At the request of the Ministerial Council on Insurance Issues and the Heads of Treasuries, the Insurance Issues Working Group established a Task Force to examine the issue of long-term care (LTC) for the catastrophically injured in Australia.
Stage 1 of the project involved:
- collecting all available data on LTC in Australia, including numbers and classifications of cases and identification of costs;
- determining whether that data can be collated into one comprehensive set; and
- determining whether that comprehensive data set is adequate to be used as a basis for testing the impact of any changes to the delivery of LTC.
Stage 1 of the project was completed with the actuarial assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
(d) Yes.
(e) Stage 1 outlined potential benefits arising out of a no-fault scheme include reduced volatility and uncertainty, reduced need for reinsurance, reduced transaction and dispute costs, and more efficient use of compensation money (as opposed to double dipping).
(f) PricewaterhouseCoopers analysed New South Wales data on the number of people that would be covered by such a scheme and the associated costs and extrapolated the data for Australia.
(g) In Adelaide on 6 August 2003, the Ministerial Council considered a report on Stage 1 and agreed to proceed to a second stage. Stage 2 will involve collecting additional relevant data with a view to assessing options for a long-term care model for consideration by Ministers at their next meeting in February 2004 in Hobart.
(h) Not at this preliminary stage of the examination.
(i) Not applicable.
(j) The Ministerial Council requested that all options be developed on the basis that there would be no net shifting of costs.
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.