The resignation of John Mendoza as chair of the federal government’s National Advisory Council on Mental Health would not have come as a surprise to readers of Crikey‘s health blog Croakey. Last month, in the wake of the government’s hospital funding agreement with the states, Mendoza wrote a scathing critique of the Rudd government’s approach to mental health …
The prime minister and minister for health and ageing claim the reforms agreed to by COAG constitute “a comprehensive health care reform package”.
Since the COAG announcement there has been a chorus of criticism from health reform experts and advisors — many of whom have been handpicked to provide advice to the government which it duly has ignored. In essence the critique is that the PM has delivered little more than a refinancing package for our public hospital system.
There is precious little in relation to mental health, indigenous health, dental health, primary care, community health and most aspects of prevention, and indeed the entire private hospital sector. The government’s narrative is that these areas will improve simply because we have thrown more resources at our ‘over-stretched hospital sector’.
In mental health, the COAG package provides just $115 million in new funds over four years. There is a return of some of the previously reduced funding for mental health nurses (just $13 million) and a further $57 million of redirected funds from the Better Access program to tally up to the headline figure of $174 million.
And yes there is a commitment to build and fund on a recurrent basis some 1,300 sub-acute beds across a range of areas — palliative, aged, respite, mental health and others. Even if every one of these went to mental health, and had an appropriate model of step-up step down care, we would still be a 1,000 short of the number of sub-acute beds that existed in the mid-1990s and we would again be putting another patch on a broken system.
The only aspect of the announcement which deserves praise is the commitment of a further $20 million in funding to headspace, the national network of youth friendly mental health services.
However, even here the government’s numbers look dodgy. The government claims an extraordinary number of young people will benefit (20,000) and up to 30 new sites will be established, extra findings for the existing 30 sites and even telephone and other services. Some of the existing sites are already struggling to remain open given the government’s failure last year to fully fund the expanding network.
To paraphrase another PM’s rhetoric from another era: ‘never before has so much health care been achieved for so little’. To realise these claims more of the headspace services would have to rely on fee-for-service arrangements or other sources of funding — hardly the way to encourage young people to seek help.
The other aspects of the COAG announcements on mental health are more of the same as we have seen time and time again when it comes to mental health — “a recognition that more needs to be done”; “[an intention] to take a greater policy and funding role for mental health services over time”; “providing a foundation for better coordinated care for people with mental health disorders into the future” — on and on it goes.
These are the same statements in some cases and the same hollow promises that have been spruiked by successive governments (federal and state/territory) for the past two decades since we began the national mental health reform strategy in 1992.
While the quantum of funding for mental health in these announcements beggars belief, what funding is there is largely misdirected. Take the $57 million over four years for “up to 25,000 people with severe mental illness living in the community”. Anyone working in the mental health sector would have choked on their Weeties reading that line in the morning newspaper!
That’s just $2,280 per person. It compares with a $10,000 package per person under another existing Commonwealth program and between $30-70,000 packages provided by several state governments for people with severe mental illness or high levels of disability as is often the phrase.
Further nonsense is the plan to send those people with “common disorders such as anxiety and depression” off to primary care services funded by the federal government and all those with other mental illnesses off to the states/territories.
So do we have a sign post for these people at the state-run community mental health service saying “no stalkers with depression or anxiety allowed here”? Where do those with treatment resistant depression, co-morbid but common conditions or moderate anxiety disorders and phobias go?
Bring back John Cleese and co — there’s new material here for them to work with!
In mental health we know what madness is like, and this is simply mad policy that will simply result in more preventable deaths every day of Australians unable to access the mental health care they and their working and non-working families and friends desperately need.
It will result in thousands more Australians every day being turned away from EDs and hospitals looking for mental health care services for which they have a fundamental human right. It will result in more lost productivity, family trauma and separation, child abuse and neglect every day because people cannot get access to effective care when and where they need it.
The prime minister said on December 7, 2009 that “a lack of early identification and intervention forces people suffering from acute mental illness to turn to hospitals … as their only option for help”. He was correct in identifying that systemic problem.
He went on to ask: “Why is it that mental health problems are so often picked up by police and drug workers, not our health services? This is the problem today, but it will become a greater problem in the future.”
And under the reform package he is right on that point as well.
It is not just Police and Drug workers who are picking up on mental health problems. As any Public Servant who has direct contact with these folk in their day to day work, volunteer church groups, home care workers, meals on wheels, social groups the list is huge. Most are not trained in dealing with mental health sufferes and habe to get by as best they can, particularly in rural and country areas where the support is next to zero.
The Governments record is abysmal in this area
Thank you, Dr Mendoza, for your thoughts. I have often thought that the push away from residential care and into community based care has been under-resourced from the start, several decades ago.
Unfortunately for some, it seems that unpleasant institutional life has been replaced by homelessness and/or destroyed families.
Living away from the larger towns and cities, as I do, I also agree with David’s comment.
I hope that, by standing up to be counted, your efforts are better rewarded than they have been.
The mental health failure and the dental care scandal get little attention. But they tell us more about the hollowmen than insulation and school building cock-ups.
With the alternative a thatcherised Liberal Party, there are few votes and no money in teeth or nutters. All the drama is about revenue-raising (the mining tax) and the massive regressive global warming tax which threatens the poor, driven by middle-class hysteria. Gillard and Turnbull are gently simmering, ready to take over. Zealots replacing fools.
Good on you, John Mendoza, for having the courage of your convictions and sticking it to a government that has been as inactive, if not as cynical, as its predecessor on mental health. I know what having a mental illness is like, and I also know what it’s like to work in the field of mental health. Difficult, chaotic, underpaid and especially unsupported are just some words I would use.
Rudd and Roxon (and Abbott for that matter) are my age (or thereabouts), but they seem so totally alien, as if they’re from another world completely. I guess this is what happens when 2 party preferred politics becomes a profession. And while Frank Campbell is right – that there ain’t no votes in teeth (not poor people’s teeth, anyway) or nutters – surely Rudd and Abbott, who take any opportunity to remind us of their christianity, would see the chance to pass straight through the pearly gates if they acted with any decency on this.
Keep up the good fight, good sir.
I used to work in mental health and there is no doubt that it is underfunded. However, the above is a bit of a rant and most ordinary readers would have little clue what Mendoza is on about (apart from more money of course). Could the real reason for his resignation be his inability to get other members of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health to go along with his rather professional-partisan approach?