Did my replies come through OK? Let me know what else might be needed. I look forward to the next steps to possibly getting the palliative care project word out!
Thanks for the questions. No, the $7 per beneficiary is the operational expenses in the most recent year divided by the number of beneficiaries in that year. In reality, this includes a large amount of donor funds, which is raised locally every year, but it is not part of the special project being proposed here as one-time funding for the special project. The $7 includes all services, including those such as the inpatient unit that is open 24/7, and a host of home care services some of which are basic (received by most beneficiaries) and some of which are targeted to special populations (e.g. Aids Adherence Programs, Medication Distribution Programs, Water Insecurity Supplementation Programs, and Mental Health re-patriation programs.
Yes, this resilience/adaptive phenomenon is part of the $7, as the programs just mentioned are all programs that have been developed to meet emergent issues in real time for vulnerable populations in the service area. So, we view the cost-effectiveness as the impact the operating expenses are having today, as well as the relevant impact they will have on even greater numbers for future generations. For those of us investing in the current project, I would say that:
Renewable energy, water access, and technology infrastructure are being installed by local South African vendors, several at below market value due to the fact those vendors' families have used hospice services and know that community value.
The infrastructure project will improve efficiencies and broaden services, so the dollar to beneficiary ratio will be improved, although I don't have specific metrics on that, but I can get estimates if you would like.
The future impact is built into the one-time investment in the current project. There are no project continuation funds to be raised as part of this project; yet, major impact will continue: Less expensive renewable energy, electrical grid independence, access to fresh water on site for inpatient facility use and distribution to seriously water stressed patients and families, networked software and hardware employed to full capacity.
IMPACT QUESTION #3 above are the specific impacts for the proposed Kath Defilippi Fund project. As far as South Coast Hospice services, the impacts have been effective provision of hospice and palliative care services (SCH Annual Report, and Report to the South African Ministry of Health), success in delivering target projects to achieve desired outcomes: water to stressed families achieved; mental health patients supported in community settings, medications distributed and lives saved in medication access deserts, inpatient services delivered to terminal and near terminal patients (high consumer satisfaction ratings), etc.
I hope this helps, let me know. Your "soft spot" is greatly appreciated, and I would love to see the EA community become more aware of palliative care! Sincerely, Phil
Hello Bruce,
Just checking in again regarding my submittal. Hope all is well.
Happy to clarify more if needed.
Thanks,
Phil Di Sorbo
Dear Bruce,
Did my replies come through OK? Let me know what else might be needed. I look forward to the next steps to possibly getting the palliative care project word out!
Many thanks, Phil
Bruce,
Thanks for the questions. No, the $7 per beneficiary is the operational expenses in the most recent year divided by the number of beneficiaries in that year. In reality, this includes a large amount of donor funds, which is raised locally every year, but it is not part of the special project being proposed here as one-time funding for the special project. The $7 includes all services, including those such as the inpatient unit that is open 24/7, and a host of home care services some of which are basic (received by most beneficiaries) and some of which are targeted to special populations (e.g. Aids Adherence Programs, Medication Distribution Programs, Water Insecurity Supplementation Programs, and Mental Health re-patriation programs.
Yes, this resilience/adaptive phenomenon is part of the $7, as the programs just mentioned are all programs that have been developed to meet emergent issues in real time for vulnerable populations in the service area. So, we view the cost-effectiveness as the impact the operating expenses are having today, as well as the relevant impact they will have on even greater numbers for future generations. For those of us investing in the current project, I would say that:
IMPACT QUESTION #3 above are the specific impacts for the proposed Kath Defilippi Fund project. As far as South Coast Hospice services, the impacts have been effective provision of hospice and palliative care services (SCH Annual Report, and Report to the South African Ministry of Health), success in delivering target projects to achieve desired outcomes: water to stressed families achieved; mental health patients supported in community settings, medications distributed and lives saved in medication access deserts, inpatient services delivered to terminal and near terminal patients (high consumer satisfaction ratings), etc.
I hope this helps, let me know. Your "soft spot" is greatly appreciated, and I would love to see the EA community become more aware of palliative care!
Sincerely, Phil