Search

Objective: To describe a recent process by which mental health service sector leaders identified key elements of strategic, systemic and structural mental health reform. These elements could guide an incoming Federal government., Method: The paper describes the process undertaken by the Sydney Mental Health Policy Forum between 2019 and 2022. This work generated principles, key domains and finally a set of actions., Results: Five immediate actions were identified that are cost neutral or require minimal investment. Five further actions requiring realignment of existing funds and/or new funds were also identified., Conclusions: The task of mental health reform in Australia is both large and overdue. Continued investment in fragmented or piecemeal programmes and services will not propel desired change. Reform must facilitate new regional control of planning, funding and responding to community mental health needs. The actions identified by the Forum set out a menu of opportunities to guide reform over the life of the next Parliament, starting now.

Objective This study set out to present data on out-of-pocket payments for Medicare mental health services provided by general practitioners (GP), psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and other psychologists, to explore how much is spent on out-of-pocket payments for mental health; if any trends could be seen; and what variations exist across regions. Methods We performed secondary analysis of publicly available data on Medicare-subsidised GP, allied health and specialist health care across Australia. We merged and interrogated data covering the period 2013-19 and 2019-21 to create a data set covering eight full years of Medicare mental health services, arranged by profession and by region. Results Out-of-pocket payments for mental health care in Australia have been rising consistently over the period 2013-21, at a considerably faster rate than overall expenditure on mental health care. There is wide variation in out-of-pocket payments depending on where you live. Conclusions The impact of out-of-pocket payments on community access to mental health care is growing. This has implications, especially in poorer communities, for access to care. This should be an important consideration taken as the Australian Government considers next steps in national mental health reform, including the Better Access Program, currently under evaluation.

Objective: To explore the impact of proposed expansion of Australia's Better Access Program and alternatives., Method: Australia's Better Access Program, which costs taxpayers AUD28 million every week, is once again the focus of national political and professional scrutiny. The current Medicare Review calls for a massive expansion. This article reviews its history and context. It challenges the recommendations made by the Review. It also provides three scenarios which model the proposed expansion, with significant implications for consumers, the workforce and taxpayers., Results: The capacity for continued growth of the Program is demonstrated. At the same time., Conclusion: There has been recent evidence suggesting the impact of the programme on key mental health indicators in Australia has been negligible, while also perpetuating social, economic and geographic inequities. While advocacy for increased mental health expenditure is easy, active reform of existing patterns of service is hard. Nonetheless, this article suggests that it is timely to reconsider the structure and scale of this AUD1.5 billion annual investment, which has the potential to grow to up to AUD10 billion per year over the next decade. In our view, it is possible to make the programme fit for purpose in the 21st century. Specifically, the principal focus could be shifted to better support the interdisciplinary, team-based care that responds to the needs of people with more complex mental health problems. An increased role for incorporation of digital technologies alongside clinical services is part of the mix. The combination of changes suggested would suggest that the programme could be rebranded as 'Better Access and Quality'. This shift in the primary focus of the clinical programme away from brief interventions for those with lower needs to more sustained interventions with those with greater impairment requires new service models, as well as new regionally based health care systems. In addition, we propose specific outcomes that can be measured regionally, and collated nationally, to properly evaluate the impact of the programme and drive systemic quality improvement.

Greatly enhanced accountability can drive mental health reform. As extant approaches are ineffective, we propose a new approach. Australia spends around $7.6 billion on mental health services annually, but is anybody getting better? Effective accountability for mental health can reduce variation in care and increase effective service provision. Despite 20 years of rhetoric, Australia's approach to accountability in mental health is overly focused on fulfilling governmental reporting requirements rather than using data to drive reform. The existing system is both fragmented and outcome blind. Australia has failed to develop useful local and regional approaches to benchmarking in mental health. New approaches must address this gap and better reflect the experience of care felt by consumers and carers, as well as by service providers. There are important social priorities in mental health that must be assessed. We provide a brief overview of the existing system and propose a new, modest but achievable set of indicators by which to monitor the progress of national mental health reform. These indicators should form part of a new, system-wide process of continuous quality improvement in mental health care and suicide prevention.

Objective: In this second and final part of this series about mental health commissions, we consider the extent to which it is possible to find hard evidence that these new structures really can drive mental health reform. Four key domains of improvement are established for the purposes of this review: do commissions lead to better resources, better services, better accountability and better stakeholder engagement? A review of the evidence from both Australia and overseas is presented. The article also considers how the commissions, federal and state, will organise their relationships productively to avoid duplication and promote synergy. What of those jurisdictions without commissions? Is this genuine national reform or merely more piecemeal activity in mental health? The authors have been informed by the varying structures and functions of mental health commissions internationally and were part of the New South Wales taskforce to establish a mental health commission. They had the opportunity to visit the Western Australian and New Zealand Commissions as part of this process., Conclusion: Addressing mental illness requires a joined up approach to government and services. Commissions offer a new organisational structure designed to deliver this contiguity. There is also evidence that nascent and established commissions are delivering real reforms, including in terms of additional resources and influence. Without concerted efforts to coordinate activity, the intersection between federal and state commissions will be confused and duplications might arise. The paper calls for a new network of commissions to be established across Australia and New Zealand, to share resources and common tasks, clarify roles and build common approaches.

Objective: Partly in response to ongoing concerns about the state of mental health care, several jurisdictions across Australia, including the federal government, are hoping to drive change via the establishment of a mental health commission. This is the first of two articles in a series which aims to describe the background to this new trend. The commissions are being established with different powers and structures. This variety is explored and considered against a typology of commissions. Some consistent themes and goals emerge. The paper then provides a contemporary assessment of the 'state of play' of the nascent commissions and describes important emerging issues and differences between the models., Conclusion: There are significant differences not only in the construct of the respective commissions but also in the political circumstances in which each must work. At the same time, the problems facing mental health in Australia are ubiquitous and profound. For commissions to be successful they will require not only astute leadership but also durable, bipartisan political support and an enduring capacity to generate new resources for the mental health sector.

Mental health policy expert Sebastian Rosenberg and psychiatrist Ian Hickie want more change.

The Council of Australian Governments revitalised national mental health reform in 2006. Unfortunately, evidence-based models of collaborative care have not yet been supported. Previous attempts at national reform have lacked a strategic vision. We continue to rely on arrangements that are fragmented between different levels of government, poorly resourced community services, and an embattled public hospital sector. Our persisting unwillingness to record or publicly report key measures of health, social or economic outcomes undermines community confidence in the mental health system. Six priority areas for urgent national action are proposed and linked to key measures of improved health system performance. In Australia, we recognise special groups (such as war veterans) and organise and fund services to meet their specific health needs. Such systems could be readily adapted to meet the needs of people with psychosis.

Australia's Fifth National Mental Health Plan required governments to report, not only on the progress of changes to mental health service delivery, but to also plan for services that should be provided. Future population demand for treatment and care is challenging to predict and one solution involves modelling the uncertain demands on the system. Modelling can help decision-makers understand likely future changes in mental health service demand and more intelligently choose appropriate responses. It can also support greater scrutiny, accountability and transparency of these processes. Australia has an emerging national capacity for systems modelling in mental health which can enhance the next phase of mental health reform. This paper introduces concepts useful for understanding mental health modelling and identifies where modelling approaches can support health service planners to make evidence-informed decisions regarding planning and investment for the Australian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's mental health system is failing young people. Calls for accountability, strategic long-term policy planning, and regional leadership have been identified as solutions to guide mental health reform. Developing system dynamics models using a participatory approach (participatory systems modelling (PSM)) is recognized as a useful method that can support decision-making for strategic reform. This paper reports evaluation findings of a youth mental health PSM process conducted in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Baseline and follow-up mixed-methods evaluation data were collected in 2022 across diverse stakeholder groups to investigate the feasibility, value, impact, and sustainability of PSM. Although youth mental health system reform was viewed as desirable and a necessity across all stakeholder groups, shared perceptions of disabling powerless was observed regarding their ability to influence current decision-making processes to improve the youth mental health system. This suggests greater accountability is required to support systemic reform in youth mental health. PSM offers promise in improving transparency and accountability of decision-making for youth mental health, as exemplified in the ACT. However, more support and time are required to facilitate transformational change. Future research should investigate empowerment strategies to complement the implementation of findings from dynamic models developed through PSM, as well as the effectiveness of regional youth mental health policy decision-making supported by systems modelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the recent Productivity Commission report into mental health, the previous Federal Government announced its intention to produce a new national agreement that lays the platform for Australia's sixth national mental health plan. It has been recommended mental health move to a more regional model of governance and planning, away from a centralised, top‐down approach, partly in response to broader reforms affecting health care, and partly in direct response to consistent inquiry evidence that the mental health system remains in crisis. The past 30 years of mental health planning have been centralised. Successive national plans set a broad framework, with real decisions about mental health funding and service allocation made in the health departments of our capital cities. Will the next plan sponsor or inhibit regionality in mental health planning? This paper assesses Australia's historical approach to health planning particularly as it affected mental health and the costs arising. In learning these lessons, we propose the necessary ingredients to facilitate a regional, innovative, and effective approach to decentralised planning, for better mental health outcomes. We cannot afford to replicate the failed planning approaches of the past. Summary at a glance Mental health has been challenged to replace historical, centralised approaches for decentralised regional planning approaches to foster choice, innovation, and effective service provision. The past 30 years of central planning have demonstrated its limitations. Federal and State governments should create an enabling environment to free‐up local implementation and operationalise a social determinants approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This paper compares the evolution of the psychosocial sector in two Australian regions pre and post introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme – a major reform to the financing, planning and provision of disability services in Australia, intended to create greater competition and efficiency in the market, and more choice for service users. Methods: We used a standardised service classification instrument based on a health ecosystems approach to assess service availability and diversity of psychosocial services provided by non-government organisations in two Primary Health Network regions. Results: We identified very different evolutionary pathways in the two regions. Service availability increased in Western Sydney but decreased in the Australian Capital Territory. The diversity of services available did not increase in either Primary Health Network 4 years after the reform. Many services were experiencing ongoing funding uncertainty. Conclusion: Assumptions of increased efficiency through organisational scaling up, and a greater diversity in range of service availability were not borne out. Implications: This study shows the urgent need for evaluation of the effects of the NDIS on the provision of psychosocial care in Australia. Four years after the implementation of the NDIS at vast expense key objectives not been met for consumers or for the system as a whole, and an environment of uncertainty has been created for providers. It demonstrates the importance of standardised service mapping to monitor the effects of major reforms on mental health care as well as the need for a focus at the local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia was one of the first countries to develop a national mental health strategy. This article reviews the progress of reform, outlining some strengths, weaknesses and prospective challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study set out to present data on out-of-pocket payments for Medicare mental health services provided by general practitioners (GP), psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and other psychologists, to explore how much is spent on out-of-pocket payments for mental health; if any trends could be seen; and what variations exist across regions. Methods: We performed secondary analysis of publicly available data on Medicare-subsidised GP, allied health and specialist health care across Australia. We merged and interrogated data covering the period 2013–19 and 2019–21 to create a data set covering eight full years of Medicare mental health services, arranged by profession and by region. Results: Out-of-pocket payments for mental health care in Australia have been rising consistently over the period 2013–21, at a considerably faster rate than overall expenditure on mental health care. There is wide variation in out-of-pocket payments depending on where you live. Conclusions: The impact of out-of-pocket payments on community access to mental health care is growing. This has implications, especially in poorer communities, for access to care. This should be an important consideration taken as the Australian Government considers next steps in national mental health reform, including the Better Access Program, currently under evaluation. What is known about the topic? A$35 m is spent on Medicare mental health services every week but there has been little research on the out-of-pocket payments charged to Australians. What does this paper add? Looking at Medicare data from 2013 to 2021, this paper answers three main questions: how much are out-of-pocket payments for mental health in Australia; what trends can be seen; and what variations exist? What are the implications for practitioners? Medicare's Better Access Program is under current review and this research can help practitioners, funders and policy-makers understand the significant investment made in mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The right to the highest attainable standard of mental health remains a distant goal worldwide. The Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of all people to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health pleaded the urgent need for governments to act through appropriate laws and policies. We argue that Australia is in breach of international obligations, with inadequate access to mental health services, inconsistent mental health legislation across jurisdictions and ongoing structural (systematic) and individual discrimination. Discussion: Inadequate access to mental health services is a worldwide phenomenon. Australia has committed to international law obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to 'promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disability, with respect to their inherent dignity'. This includes people with mental health impairment and this convention includes the right to 'the highest attainable standard of mental health'. Under the Australian Constitution, ratification of this convention enables the national government to pass laws to implement the convention obligations, and such national laws would prevail over any inconsistent state (or territory) laws governing mental health service provision. Summary: The authors argue that enabling positive rights through legislation and legally binding mental health service standards may facilitate enhanced accountability and enforcement of such rights. These steps may support critical key stakeholders to improve the standards of mental health service provision supported by the implementation of international obligations, thereby accelerating mental health system reform. Improved legislation would encourage better governance and the evolution of better services, making mental health care more accessible, without structural or individual discrimination, enabling all people to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To consider the changing profile of Australia's mental health workforce and the implications, particularly for specialist psychiatry services.Method: We analyse data from a national collection that describes changes in the workforce over a decade, to 2017-2018.Results: While single practitioner-based psychological services flourish, other areas of more complex and team-based care are struggling to remain relevant. Psychiatry and mental health nursing, two areas that previously led Australia's response to complex mental illness, are under enormous pressure.Conclusion: The shifting balance of specialised mental health workforces is affecting the mental healthcare available in each region of Australia. Questions arise regarding the desired or optimal mix of professionals we wish to deploy. What roles should each professional group play and how should they work together? What does this mean for how various groups should be trained and paid? These data challenge the role specialist psychiatry wishes to play in leading reform. Current mental health reforms risk foundering should psychiatrists fail to take up the challenge of leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the effort of the federal government in Australia for mental health reform. The establishment of the National Mental Health Commission (NMHC) by the administration of Prime Minister Julia Gillard is tackled. The enhancement of social and economic participation in the nation is also explored.

Purpose – This article aims to describe the process by which the new NSW Government executed its election promise to establish a Mental Health Commission for NSW. Design/methodology/approach – This case study draws on observations of the author who was expert facilitator to the Taskforce to establish the new NSW Commission. The paper synthesises the work of the Taskforce, the input of a consultation process that engaged more than 2,000 people, through six state-wide community fora, online survey and other means. In describing the nature of the new NSW Commission, the paper will also reflect on key learnings from the Taskforce's interactions with other mental health commissions, including in New Zealand, Western Australia and Canada. Findings – Widespread concern about the lack of access to quality mental health care was reflected in broad support for a new Mental Health Commission. Opinions varied about how such a new body could be effective. Strong bipartisan political support is key. Also critical is ensuring the new body has sufficient legislative power and reach. Research limitations/implications – This paper relies on the observations of a key participant in a reform process. This brings the limitations of potential bias as well as the strength of understanding that is difficult for outsiders to access. The actual impact of the new NSW Mental Health Commission will only become apparent following its 1 July 2012 start-up. Practical implications – Many jurisdictions are turning to specialised governance models, such as a Commission, to drive mental health reform. This paper identifies some of the key issues to consider in pursuing this strategy. Social implications – Commissions need to have strong engagement with consumers, carers, service providers and the general community. This paper highlights some key issues in building these links. Originality/value – The work of the Taskforce to Establish a NSW raised a range of issues relevant to any mental health reform process. Given the level of community concern about mental health care, these are important lessons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Australia’s Better Access initiative in mental health. Enhancing affordable and equitable access to relevant psychological therapies has long been the main aim of reforming primary care-based mental health services in Australia. The Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) programme introduced in 2001 was a major breakthrough for mental health and direct support for skilled professionals, including psychologists to deliver evidence-based interventions.

Australia has a demonstrated commitment to the development of national plans and policies regarding mental health. Just how effective have these policies been in driving real reform and generating new models of effective, collaborative mental health care? This article examines some of the progress and gaps over a 20-year national planning process and considers contemporary developments affecting our federated health system. Some dangers to the trajectory of Australia's reform process become clear just when the public and political profile of mental health has reached new heights. A key gap is in relation to accountability and Australia's capacity to demonstrate clearly the real impact services have on the lives of people with a mental illness. This article gives an overview of the legacy of Australian mental health reform and presents examples of collaborative and innovative practice across mental health care, housing, employment, and quality improvement. From this analysis, the ongoing challenges for Australian mental health reform become clearer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]