A Cost Comparison From a Health Service Perspective of Three Allied Health Models of Care for Remote Australia: Student-Assisted Services, Fly-In Fly-Out Services and Services Provided by a Resident Clinician
- PMID: 40387089
- PMCID: PMC12087267
- DOI: 10.1111/ajr.70012
A Cost Comparison From a Health Service Perspective of Three Allied Health Models of Care for Remote Australia: Student-Assisted Services, Fly-In Fly-Out Services and Services Provided by a Resident Clinician
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this paper is to compare the costs of an allied health student-assisted model of care with Fly-In-Fly-Out (FIFO) and resident clinician models of care from a health system perspective.
Methods: A descriptive cost analysis was conducted to understand the costs of an allied health student-assisted model of care. Scenarios were developed for the two remaining service models to determine their costs from a health service perspective.
Design: An observed and modelled costing study.
Setting: Northern Territory, Australia.
Participants: Allied health professionals and students.
Main outcome measure(s): The cost of providing a student-assisted model of care from a health service perspective.
Results: The students provided an average of 5 h of service time per client to 50 clients at a cost of $2363 per client. Three resident clinician and FIFO scenarios were modelled. The first scenario was based on time with clients across all three student cohorts. The second scenario applied the time spent with clients by the third cohort, reflecting the increase in time spent with clients as the program matured. In the third scenario, we increased the time in scenario 2 by 25% to account for the potential under-recording of client time. The resident clinician results for the three scenarios were $915, $987, and $1178, respectively. The FIFO results for the three scenarios were $1502, $1575, and $1922, respectively.
Conclusions: The student-assisted model was more expensive per client seen than the FIFO and resident clinician models, but significant intangible benefits were identified that positively impact both clients and students. These include training health professionals for remote communities in a culturally responsive model, greater cultural understanding, and increased care coordination provided by the students.
Keywords: allied health; fly‐in fly out (FIFO); remote health; rural health; workforce training.
© 2025 The Author(s). Australian Journal of Rural Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of National Rural Health Alliance Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
Funding for this work was provided by the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRCNA) and the Australian Government, Department of Health, through the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training (RHMT) Programme. The work has not previously been published.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Marŋgithirri guŋga'yunarawu ga guŋga'yunyarawu marŋgithinyarawu Learning to connect and connecting to learn: Preparing the rural and remote allied health workforce through a co-created student-implemented service in East Arnhem, Australia.Aust J Rural Health. 2022 Feb;30(1):75-86. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12813. Epub 2021 Dec 21. Aust J Rural Health. 2022. PMID: 34932243
-
Is Fly in/Fly out (FIFO) a viable interim solution to address remote medical workforce shortages?Rural Remote Health. 2012;12:2261. Epub 2012 Oct 9. Rural Remote Health. 2012. PMID: 23046214
-
Allied Health Student-Led Clinics: An Opportunity for Workforce Development.Aust J Rural Health. 2025 Apr;33(2):e70034. doi: 10.1111/ajr.70034. Aust J Rural Health. 2025. PMID: 40135743 Free PMC article.
-
Challenges to student transition in allied health undergraduate education in the Australian rural and remote context: a synthesis of barriers and enablers.Rural Remote Health. 2015 Apr-Jun;15(2):3069. Epub 2015 Apr 27. Rural Remote Health. 2015. PMID: 25916254 Review.
-
The Fly-in Fly-out and Drive-in Drive-out model of health care service provision for rural and remote Australia: benefits and disadvantages.Rural Remote Health. 2015 Jul-Sep;15(3):3068. Epub 2015 Jul 19. Rural Remote Health. 2015. PMID: 26190237 Review.
References
-
- Edelman A. G. J., Moodley N., Larkins S., et al., Northern Australia Health Service Delivery Situational Analysis (Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia, 2020).
-
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare , Rural and Remote Health (AIHW, 2022).
-
- National Guideline Centre (UK) , Emergency and Acute Medical Care in Over 16s: Service Delivery and Organisation (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2018). - PubMed
-
- Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care , National Strategic Framework for Rural and Remote Health (Australian Government Department of Health, 2016).
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical