Australian Mental Health Policy - Assignment Example

Name: Institution: Australian Mental Health Policy A clear understanding of the rationales anchoring the discourse of social policy is an imperative worthy noting when discussing the commons welfare. Social policy in this review is used in the sense that elucidates welfare values such as the law that governments abhor in order to safeguard welfare and protection of socio-cultural values. Additionally, the term is viewed under the lens of an instrument through which welfare is built and disseminated to cover a particular society wholesomely. Sifting the context to Australian viewpoint, social policy is discussed in the sense that connotes the government tools that aid in structuring and integrating public social services to satisfy the welfare state. The inherent reform character endowed in social policies has been apparent in the Australia’s quest of extending public health services far beyond traditional government obligations. This premise reflects the power of social policy in helping the federal government in choosing strategic social welfare areas for prioritized promotion. The review offers a particular synthesis of the emergence and state of mental health policy in Australia, while exploring the social and economic contexts that shaped and continually transform the development of welfare in the society. The federal government of Australia embarked on a reform journey in the area of mental health services since early 1990s, which has so far seen development of several policies to guide the process. The National Mental Health (NMH) strategy forms the basis of reforms and operations in Australia and has since led to significant changes in deliverance of health services among the mentally sick in the country. The policy is founded on the provision of human rights with reports on violation of such rights serving as a catalyst to progressive review and enactment of changes in the Australian National Mental Health Plan (ANMHP) (Rosen, 2006). A critical review of the federal government’s health law, particularly on the part of mental health gives the perspective of Australian government’s commitment to improved quality health. Background Information on the Policy The law on mental health in Australia is anchored on many listed policies that occur within the mental health and well being doctrine that buttresses the segment of public healthcare. The policy is anchored on crucial strategies that aid in directing Australian government in discharging its onus of social protection and ensuring mental health in the society. It will be noted that despite tremendous structural changes achieved in the area of mental healthcare in Australia, little evidence is apparent to second perceived improvements in quality of services. In spite of the existence of a national mental health strategy for many years, Australia ranked among other western countries that faced continual criticism about the quality and availability of mental healthcare. This premise provided the impetus leading to the creation of NMH policy across the Australian federation in 1992 (Australian Health Ministers, 1992). From a political standpoint, construction of the policy was particularly motivated by the UN resolution on human rights especially for people with mental illnesses or disabilities (World Health Organization, 2005). The Australian government established the policy to facilitate changes in the country’s health system in a move to adhere to the agreement made by the Commonwealth government in relation to the treatment of mentally ill people among other minority groups. The capstone of the policy is laid on the government’s determination to foster equal treatment of people with mental disorders across all health facilities including both private and public institutions. The Australian NMH law has made several changes in serving people suffering from mental challenges among them the empowerment of primary care and community based mental healthcare through increased funding from the government (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). Construction of this policy has facilitated amendment of various legal clauses to ensure that the mentally challenged are recognized among people with special needs. Such changes have been driven by previous experiences in which such people have been discriminated in all social, political, and economic aspects including denial of basic human rights such as freedom of movement and interactions. In this context, the policy provides a legal framework that seeks to mandate equal treatment and opportunities for such people in all areas as well as protection of mentally ill people from mistreatment in the society. Both internal and external forces drove the Australian government’s commitment in the construction and implementation of the health policy. An alarming rate in the growth of the number of people suffering from mental-related illnesses and the slow recovery of such patients has particularly played a great role in compelling the government to establish strategies for dealing with the menace (Hansen, Bi, Nitschke, Ryan, Pisaniello & Tucker, 2008). On the other hand, external forces such as the need to conform to the UN resolutions and international standards have provided a catalytic force towards the implementation of the policy. Like other treaties, Australia’s mental health services should be within the provisions of the Commonwealth states’ resolution on the treatment of such people. Therefore, despite the establishment of the NMH law, several policies have been established since its creation between the 2008 revision and endorsement of the NMH policy. The policy outlines commitment by the government on the creation and implementation of policy guidelines in the realm of mental health. Additionally, NMH gives the government’s perspective on health programs geared towards prevention, rehabilitation and recovery. The policy’s main objectives revolve around increasing service responsiveness, enhancement of healthcare among mentally challenges, and prevention of the diseases as well as enhancing research on the sustainability of managing and controlling mental related ailments. The most recent plan in line with this policy lays great emphasis on establishment of disease prevention and management concepts as well as mechanisms of arresting potential risks that predispose patients into the mental suffering (Trauer, 2010). Additionally, the policy seeks more inclusive approach in battling the diseases by creating programs that attract both public and health service givers. Health Principles Underlying the Policy Although the NMH Policy is anchored on ratifying the universal declaration on human rights, it lies within the universal and equality principles in the provision of healthcare services (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The various strategies incorporated in the policy aim at ensuring that all health care institutions in the country adhere to these principles. The policy particularly encourages significant participation of the government in different ways including financing and regulating the healthcare system to guarantee adherence to universal and equality principles. The policy seeks to promote the principle of accountability in the provision of the mental healthcare services within the Australian healthcare system. The monitoring supports the principle of accountability and regulation strategies included in the policy. Another vital approach guiding the implementation of the policy is the responsiveness concept in which the government seeks to enhance reactions to mental illness within the country’s healthcare system. The policy supports a collaborative participation of different stakeholders apart from the government including private and specialty hospitals, non-governmental organizations and community-based healthcare providers in promoting a mentally healthy Australian community (Sherbon, 2010). The policy not only focuses on the effective treatment of mentally ill people, but also establishing ways of turning them into productive people in the society. Therefore, the policy calls for involvement of welfare organizations, housing, employers, and the education system to devise ways of accommodating such people in their plans and operations. The social inclusion principle is also applied in the policy as a strategy to avert previous discrimination issues against people with mental disorders as well as elimination of the stigma associated with the health condition. Government’s Response to the Policy The government’s response to the health policy has been overwhelming as depicted by the increment in funds towards implementation of the social aw. In a healthcare agreement that ran from 2003-2009, the Australian government pledged to provide direct financing to all states and territories in order to facilitate reforms outlined under the National Mental Health Strategy (Whiteford, Buckingham & Manderscheid, 2002). These reforms are focused on improving continuity of care across specialty settings, both public and private, by providing better-integrated services. The direct funding from the government is crucial in driving changes expected from implementation of the policy especially the empowerment of primary healthcare facilities and community based healthcare providers to address the needs of such people effectively. With treatment of mentally ill people previously offered in specialty psychiatrist institutions, the government realized the need to equip primary healthcare facilities to enhance accessibility of the services to all people regardless of their financial ability. Through this policy, the federal government has increased its funding towards mental healthcare from previous years with about 51 percent of the funds going to community based services as opposed to a previous scenario where they greatest portion of the government funds went to specialized hospitals (Whiteford et al., 2002). The policy has led to significant reductions in government spending on standalone psychiatric hospitals in favor of community-based services. The reduction could be attributed to the failure of these hospitals to address the problem of mental illness as well as significant criticism leveled against the institutions including advancement of the isolation problem. Standalone psychiatric hospitals have been associated with slow healing of the patients while at the same time encouraging isolation of mentally sick people from the society, a phenomenon that touts against various basic human rights. The government’s commitment in the implementation of this policy is clear in the fourth phase of the policy in which an agreement was reached between state governments to fund treatment and control of mental illnesses in the COAG National plan (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). This agreement emphasized on the need for governments to work together in promoting the establishment of a well integrated and coordinated healthcare service provision. Other plans established under this policy include the national suicide prevention strategy and the policy to ensure promotion of better mental health services to the veteran community. From a social perspective, the policy has been focused on promoting co-existence between the mentally ill persons and the community rather than isolation of such people in specialized psychiatrist hospitals (Willis, Reynolds & Helen, 2008). The policy advocates for community-based services as way of encouraging the community to understand the mental problem better and ways of preventing it rather than taking the problem away from them. The new intervention strategy provides mental health victims with an opportunity to contribute to community development as well as assisting them to recover faster and more effectively. The community-based focus in the provision of the services harbors the potential to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness, which has remained a great challenge in promoting a mentally healthy community. The policy is further affecting the society through reduction in the costs incurred in search of specialized treatment in the psychiatrist hospitals by enhancing accessibility of such services in primary health institutions and community-based services (Doessel, Tonmukayakul & Williams, 2011). The policy has also led to accessibility of the mental health services to indigenous services in a move to promote social inclusiveness in the policy implementation. With the policy laid on the foundation of basic human rights, its implementation has opened reforms related to guaranteeing people of mental illnesses equal opportunities and treatment like other normal people in the society (McAuley & Menadue, 2007). Conclusion The Australian government policy on mental health services is a product of several plans and strategies marked by its various phases of implementation. The policy has been instrumental in the promotion of a mentally health society through ensuring accessibility of the mental health services to all people regardless of their status quo. The National Mental Health Policy is founded on various principles in healthcare including the universal and equitable accessibility to health services, responsiveness, social inclusion and accountability. The remarkable government response and commitment to the implementation of the policy is attributed to both internal and external forces including the increased rates of mental illness in the country. The policy strongly advocates for the shift from specialized psychiatrist hospitals form of treatment to the community-based care, which guarantees accessibility to such services as well as participation of the community. Implementation of the policy has so far led to reduction in the number of mental health disorders and significant involvement of all stakeholders in addressing the mental related diseases in the country. References Australian Health Ministers. (1992). National mental health policy. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Fourth national mental health plan: An agenda for collaborative government action in mental health 2009-2014. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/360EB322114EC906CA2 576700014A817/$File/plan09v2.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). National mental health policy. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/BF4CF02AE1033BF1CA 25722200119A23/$File/policy.pdf Doessel, P., Tonmukayakul, U., & Williams, G. (2011). Quantifying the economic structure of the Australian mental health sector since 1992-93. International Journal of Mental Health, 40 (2), 25-54. Hansen, A., Bi, P., Nitschke, M., Ryan , P., Pasaniello, D., & Tucker, G. (2008). The effects of heat waves on mental health in a temperate Australian city. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116 (10), 1369-1375. McAuley, I., & Menadue, J. (2007). A health policy for Australia: Reclaiming universal health care. Center for Policy Development. Retrieved from http://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/AHPFA_CPD_smallfile_0.pdf Rosen, A. (2006). The Australian experience of deinstitutionalization: Interaction of Australian culture with the development and reform of its mental health services. Supplementum, 113, 81-89. Sherbon, T. (2010). South Australia’s mental health and well-being policy. Retrieved from http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/3ae2ab80430c70968be5db2cf7cfa853/s ahealthmentalhealthandwellbeingpolicy-conspart-sahealth- 30062010.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3ae2ab80430c70968be5db2cf7cfa853 Trauer, T. (2010). Outcome measurement in mental health: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whiteford, H., Buckingham, B., & Manderscheid, R. (2002). Australia’s national mental health strategy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 210-215. Willis, E., Reynolds, L., & Helen, K. (2008). Understanding the Australian Health Care System. Elsevier Australia. World Health Organization. (2005). Mental Health Atlas 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization. Read More