Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Models of Service Delivery and Funding of Mental Health Services

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Rosenberg, Sebastian
Roberts, Russell

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Springer Link

Abstract

Mental health funding is neither neutral nor impartial. Decisions about funding shape the nature of care, its availability, duration, and the relationships between service providers. It is estimated that Australia spends $28.6bn on mental health annually, including funding for services, employment, disability support, and other payments. Almost $10bn is provided by Australia’s nine governments for mental health services specifically, with the states and territories providing $6bn, the Australian Government $3.4bn. Mental health funding is often tied to a model of care, a population or geographic group, or to provide general support for an organization. But in the Australian mental health “system” relationships are complex and fragmented. Repeated inquiries have revealed major gaps in the spectrum of care. Consumers, carers, and even providers are too often left lost, confused, and frustrated. This fragmentation is mirrored in the way mental health is funded. In fact, Australian mental health funding is not really any kind of joined-up system at all. Rather, multiple funders engage with a confounding and sometimes competing array of service providers, obscuring role clarity and diminishing accountability. Services operate in silos to overlapping or even conflicting goals. This situation applies to rural and remote areas as much as urban contexts. This chapter describes this chaotic situation and considers the implications arising for the organization and delivery of mental health services in rural and remote communities. Our findings suggest a situation so flawed fundamental changes in governance and accountability are necessary. These changes that would see capital city-based funders working collaboratively with local experts and rural leaders, with strong accountability to the rural communities they are supposed to serve. This would drive more integration in funding, reflecting local context, better supporting, and improving rural mental health.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Book Title

Handbook of Rural, Remote, and very Remote Mental Health

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2099-12-31