Making better choices about mental health investment: The case for urgent reform of Australia's Better Access Program.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of proposed expansion of Australia's Better Access Program and alternatives.

METHOD

Australia's Better Access Program, which costs taxpayers AUD28 million every week, is once again the focus of national political and professional scrutiny. The current Medicare Review calls for a massive expansion. This article reviews its history and context. It challenges the recommendations made by the Review. It also provides three scenarios which model the proposed expansion, with significant implications for consumers, the workforce and taxpayers.

RESULTS

The capacity for continued growth of the Program is demonstrated. At the same time.

CONCLUSION

There has been recent evidence suggesting the impact of the programme on key mental health indicators in Australia has been negligible, while also perpetuating social, economic and geographic inequities. While advocacy for increased mental health expenditure is easy, active reform of existing patterns of service is hard. Nonetheless, this article suggests that it is timely to reconsider the structure and scale of this AUD1.5 billion annual investment, which has the potential to grow to up to AUD10 billion per year over the next decade. In our view, it is possible to make the programme fit for purpose in the 21st century. Specifically, the principal focus could be shifted to better support the interdisciplinary, team-based care that responds to the needs of people with more complex mental health problems. An increased role for incorporation of digital technologies alongside clinical services is part of the mix. The combination of changes suggested would suggest that the programme could be rebranded as 'Better Access and Quality'. This shift in the primary focus of the clinical programme away from brief interventions for those with lower needs to more sustained interventions with those with greater impairment requires new service models, as well as new regionally based health care systems. In addition, we propose specific outcomes that can be measured regionally, and collated nationally, to properly evaluate the impact of the programme and drive systemic quality improvement.