Redevelop the Better Access program say mental health experts
Australia urgently needs a new and fairer approach to the provision of quality Medicare-funded psychological services, say University of Sydney mental health experts and from the Brain and Mind Centre.
Published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, their Perspective piece argues that the Better Access program (established in 2006 by the Howard Government) has blown its budget, been evaluated only once in its 13-year history, and 鈥渇ailed to address key service gaps and socio-demographic challenges鈥�.
鈥淔rom November 2006 to the end of the financial year 2016鈥�17, Australia had spent almost $6 billion on 62 million services under the Better Access program,鈥� said Dr Sebastian Rosenberg, Senior Lecturer from the Brain and Mind Centre.
鈥淭he program has grown every year over the decade. In 2016鈥�17, it delivered 8.6 million services at a cost of $820 million, or $15.8 million every week.
鈥淚n addition to these Medicare charges, it is common for service providers under Better Access to also charge patients out-of-pocket costs, which typically adds around 25 percent to each occasion of service.
鈥淭he Better Access program has been formally evaluated once. A core component of this evaluation was the views of 883 consumers, selected by their own health professionals. This selection, while not random, concluded that the program was helpful.鈥�
鈥淎bout 60 percent of all services under Better Access were provided to women in 2007鈥�08 and this has remained unchanged. Young men aged 12鈥�24 years comprised 7 percent of all Better Access service users in 2007鈥� 2008 and 8 percent in 2016鈥�2017.
鈥淚nequitable access on the basis of rurality and gender is a problem in Better Access, as it is with many health programs,鈥� he said.
Dr Rosenberg and Professor Hickie acknowledged that Better Access was a generous program and that without it the proportion of mental health spending to total health spending would have declined.
Nevertheless, the program represents Australia鈥檚 willingness over the past two decades to 鈥榝ix鈥� mental health by prioritising increased access over systems that promote enhanced quality or monitor health or functional outcomes.
Professor Ian Hickie, Co-Director (Health and Policy) at the said: 鈥淢ore than a decade since it was implemented, the Better Access program should be redeveloped to maximise its benefit.
鈥淏etter Access continues to operate with little or no accountability at the practitioner or national policy level.
鈥淲e recommend a shift away from the sole practitioner model of mental health care perpetuated by fee-for-service models (like Better Access) and towards more multidisciplinary approaches typically associated with quality mental health care.
鈥淲e also recommend accountability for mental health central to a system of quality improvement via a suite of validated and patient-centred measures, routinely collected, and incorporating best use of information technology tools.
鈥淎 more intelligent response to mental illness means taking a broader view about how best to arrange quality care and then properly assessing the impact of that care on a person鈥檚 life,鈥� he said.
