Comments on: What’s missing from the first national mental health report card http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/11/27/whats-missing-from-the-first-national-mental-health-report-card/ Mon, 20 May 2013 05:42:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Daniel Hinson http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/11/27/whats-missing-from-the-first-national-mental-health-report-card/comment-page-1/#comment-5862 Daniel Hinson Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:39:57 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/?p=9853#comment-5862 The national mental health and suicide prevention Report Card raises significant concerns as to whether those with mental illness can achieve the Report's aim of leading "a contributing life". However, as Professor Fels states, although the Report is only in its first year and some issues are yet be addressed, Australia is leading the way for other countries in this reform. It is positive that the Federal government and NMHC are attempting to address the significant global issue of mental health, but in order for the Report to have any impact, the government must maintain transparency and openness regarding how services and programs will be implemented and costed. For the Report to truly succeed, the government must work from a grass-roots level with communities, service providers and government agencies to achieve its goals. While the Report recognises the need for change for people with mental health problems, it is not acceptable that Mostyn states in the Report that it is difficult to know the most effective service approach to increase monitoring and close the gap on life expectancy for people with complex health needs. The reasons for this are complex but may lie in issues such as the unreliability of current available data. Such data is not a reliable indicator for work being carried out in the community, by private providers or the important role that families, support people and peer workers provide. It is also concerning that available data does not illustrate whether people’s lives are improving, they are being treated with respect, or if the government has the balance correct in relation to funding and which services it supports. The national mental health and suicide prevention Report Card raises significant concerns as to whether those with mental illness can achieve the Report’s aim of leading “a contributing life”. However, as Professor Fels states, although the Report is only in its first year and some issues are yet be addressed, Australia is leading the way for other countries in this reform. It is positive that the Federal government and NMHC are attempting to address the significant global issue of mental health, but in order for the Report to have any impact, the government must maintain transparency and openness regarding how services and programs will be implemented and costed. For the Report to truly succeed, the government must work from a grass-roots level with communities, service providers and government agencies to achieve its goals.

While the Report recognises the need for change for people with mental health problems, it is not acceptable that Mostyn states in the Report that it is difficult to know the most effective service approach to increase monitoring and close the gap on life expectancy for people with complex health needs. The reasons for this are complex but may lie in issues such as the unreliability of current available data. Such data is not a reliable indicator for work being carried out in the community, by private providers or the important role that families, support people and peer workers provide. It is also concerning that available data does not illustrate whether people’s lives are improving, they are being treated with respect, or if the government has the balance correct in relation to funding and which services it supports.

]]>