Social Policy On Mental Health In Australia

Background of the National Mental Health Policy in Australia

Discuss about the Social Policy on Mental Health in Australia.

Social Policy on Mental Health in Australia is a policy that outlines the vision designed for the general mental health of the Australia Population. The policy outlines the measures that must be acted upon to effectively prevent and manage the growth and increase of mental and neurological disorders (Clement et al. 2015). Australia has been at the forefront of the provision of health care and especially in general health services and a leader in the mental health policy and service departments. This, however, could be due to the need to reduce the increasing statics of reported cases of mental health problems in the country. According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics, 20% of the Australian population aged between 16 years to 85 years has been reported to have experienced a mental problem in a year. The most prevalent and experienced mental illness and disorders include depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and substance use disorder (Wang, 2015). The most likely to affect people been the anxiety disorder which has a percentage of 14 while depressed disorder is reported to be 6 % and substance use disorder at 5% this is also supported by the report and review of the Australian Institute of health and welfare (AIHW). This essay, therefore, seeks to provide an understanding of the National mental health policy and how efficient the policy has been in improving mental health care as well as provide recommendations which will enhance its efficiency.

A conceptualized mental health policy brings about coordinated essential services and activities aimed at treatment and care of mental illness are delivered to individuals in needs while at the same time decreasing the rate of inefficiency in the health system (Murray et al. 2014). An effective development of a mental health policy would involve a systematic effort of different stakeholders in assessing the population needs, gathering the required evidence for effective strategies as well as having consultations and negotiations with relevant bodies.

The National Mental Health Policy development in Australia was in a bid to review the reforms of prior development of the Australian mental health strategy (AMHS). The strategy was a commitment made by the Australian government with the aim of changing the lives and conditions of people with mental illness. Therefore, it aimed at promoting the mental health of the community at large, reduce the impact of mental disorder on individuals, families and the community as well as assure and protect the rights of the people with mental illness (ReingleGonzalez, & Connell, 2014). Therefore the Australia National Mental Health Policy represented the commitment of health ministers and other stakeholders in the health sector tasked with role of providing mental health and improvement of Australia mental health care. The policy has worked towards the establishment of an efficient mental health system that can detect an illness as well as promote recovery from disorders and ensures that all population with mental challenges can have access to appropriate treatment.

Impacts of the National Mental Health Policy in Australia

Despite the many gains brought forth by the National mental health strategy through the impact, it has created to individuals, families and the community at large which included the ability to access to a wider range of health services, improved quality of service delivery and accountability in legislation. However, there is the need of developing a new approach that would incorporate some different mental health issues in areas of clinical and community support. It aims at reducing the prevalence of mental illness among the population and helps maximize the health status of Australians and deliver equality in distribution of health services across all groups without discrimination (Parker & Milroy, 2014). The government is, therefore, making great efforts in achieving greater social inclusion for all communities. This because one goal of social inclusion in policy is that it recognizes that mental health is important to the general well-being of members of the society. The policy approach is also guided by the fact that mental problems and illness in a society can cause increased levels of disability as well as reduced quality of life for the affected individuals, on their families and friends as well as bear some significant societal and economic consequences.

The policy has had an impact on the specific individuals who were at risk of suffering from mental health problems, their families, friends, as well as to the community and the government at large. One of the impacts of the policy is that it has reaffirmed the importance of good mental health in the society contrary to the prior opinion of reducing mental illness for the community at large (Whiteford et al. 2014). It has set forth a future for the development of reforms to improve mental health service delivery across all sectors. The policy has reduced the costs of unplanned emergencies by the government in addressing health issues related to mental health. The policy has also helped in bringing social cohesion in the society by bringing together all the relevant stakeholders and reducing potential discrimination and isolation of people with mental health disorders. The policy has no winner or a loser, in this case, is the main goal of social policy is to achieve its purpose. If the purpose or vision of the policy is achieved then all the stakeholders involved in the implementation of the policy are winners (Funk, 2016). The policy ensures that the individuals at the risk of experiencing mental health problems or illness will receive quality health services which will meet and support their needs. An improved mental health care will also increase the nation’s labor resources through increased productivity and general active involvement in social and community roles by the people experiencing mental health illness.

Current Status of the National Mental Health Policy Implementation

The policy has been funded by the Australian federal as well as state governments in conjunction with other social work agencies such as the health ministers in the country. For example, in the 2011/2012 fiscal year, the Australian government invested a total of 28.6 billion estimated to be equivalent to 2.2% of the country’s GDP to support the mental health services in the country. This amount of money was used to cater for both private and public mental health services including medication, drug and alcohol services and also the mental health services in the criminal system (Meadows et al. 2015). Other funding’s to the national mental health policy are also done by the federal budget of Australia as well as the Council of Australian governments in support of the government efforts to reduce and improve mental health service delivery.

The current position of the national mental health policy is that the policy is still under implementation and a collective effort from all stakeholders is required in order to improve the service delivery of mental health. The policy needs constant review in a bid to make the necessary changes resulting from monitoring and evaluation reports which provide individuals, families and even societal concerns rising from the mental health services provided (Strandh et al. 2014). the implementation of the policy still requires additional finances as there is a need for more professionals to be deployed in rural areas in which the current government is been blamed for lack of enough finance allocation for the policy implementation. The Australian 2017 budget has attracted a lot of complaints whereby the budget is said to lack a coherent strategy and inadequate to improve the mental health in the nation.

In a bid to improve the process of implementation of the national mental health policy (NMHP) as well as the aims of the policy it is recommended that government should ensure that those at the risk of experiencing mental illness will receive services that meet their clinical health needs and other social support needs. The government and other stakeholders should add more capital resources and invest more funds in mental health care (World Health Organization, 2014). The government should also provide the required housing properties and support for individual with or at risk of experiencing mental health illness. Such a move will reduce discrimination and stigma experienced by the people experiencing mental illness.

When it comes to changes in work places, it is recommended that the employers in different sectors should ensure equitable participation in work for people with mental health problems. Most times these people feel discriminated against at work place and therefore to achieve social inclusion these measures have to be put in place (Fazel et al. 2014). For the individuals in the criminal justice sector, the system should provide and ensure that people diagnosed with mental health issues in their system participates and contributes to the community since in most cases these people in courts are usually over represented. The policy of mental health is, therefore, a collective policy which affects not only the individual at the risk of mental health illness but also their families as well as the community at large.

Recommendations for Improving the National Mental Health Policy

Conclusion

The efforts involved in development and implementation of mental health social policy in Australia has been vital in improving the state of mental health in the country. For instance, the Australian Mental Health Strategy (AMHS 2008) has provided a platform for the development of the National Mental Health Social Policy (NMHSP). It is a review of the former social mental health policy in a bid to improve its effectiveness of promoting the mental health of the general community.  It is also aimed at reducing the impact of mental disorders and their development. The national mental health (NMH) social policy has revolutionized and improved the status of mental health in the country; however, more funds are required as well as a call for social cohesiveness and social inclusion. A healthy nation is productive in all sectors, and therefore it is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that this social policy is fully implemented. The policy vision, values, principles, and objectives should always be the determinants of the policy focus areas. And therefore an improved status of mental health services will increase the countryhuman capital through greater productivity as well as active involvement of affected members in social and community roles.

References

Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., …&     Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help- seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Psychological medicine, 45(1), 11-27.

Fazel, S., Geddes, J. R., &Kushel, M. (2014). The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. The Lancet, 384(9953), 1529-1540.

Funk, M. (2016). Global burden of mental disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response from health and social sectors at the country level.

Meadows, G. N., Enticott, J. C., Inder, B., Russell, G. M., &Gurr, R. (2015). Better access to mental health care and the failure of the Medicare principle of universality. The Medical Journal of Australia, 202(4), 190-194.

Murray, L. K., Dorsey, S., Haroz, E., Lee, C., Alsiary, M. M., Haydary, A., …& Bolton, P. (2014). A common elements treatment approach for adult mental health problems in low and middle-income countries.Cognitive and behavioral practice, 21(2), 111-123.

Parker, R., & Milroy, H. (2014). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health: an overview. Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice, 2, 25-38.

Reingle Gonzalez, J. M., & Connell, N. M. (2014). Mental health of prisoners: Identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity. American journal of public health, 104(12), 2328-2333.

Strandh, M., Winefield, A., Nilsson, K., &Hammarström, A. (2014).Unemployment and mental health scarring during the life course.The European Journal of Public Health, 24(3), 440-  445.

Wang, B. (2015). Men’s health. Good Practice, (5), 6.

Whiteford, H. A., Buckingham, W. J., Harris, M. G., Burgess, P. M., Pirkis, J. E., Barendregt, J. J., & Hall, W. D. (2014).Estimating treatment rates for mental disorders in Australia.Australian Health Review, 38(1), 80-85.

World Health Organization.(2014). Social determinants of mental health.World Health Organization.. Social policy: Themes and approaches (Revised second edition). Policy Press.