Connect
MJA
MJA

Increased access to evidence-based primary mental health care: will the implementation match the rhetoric?

Ian B Hickie and Patrick D McGorry
Med J Aust 2007; 187 (2): 100-103.
Published online: 16 July 2007

Dealing equally with health care for mental, substance-use, and general health conditions requires a fundamental change in how we as a society and health care system think about and respond to these problems and illnesses.1

Harvey V Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, 2006.

For too long, the needs of those with common mental health problems have been marginalised by the society in which we live, the social systems we rely on and our traditional health care systems.2-4 Once again, the need for coordinated national health and welfare services for people with mental health and substance misuse problems has been recognised by all Australian governments.5 While a far-reaching and internationally recognised national mental health strategy was first developed in the early 1990s,6 insufficient investment, lack of accountability, divided systems of government and changing health care demands resulted in a very patchy set of reforms.2-4,7-9 Major geographical, economic and health system barriers to primary and specialist care persisted. There was insufficient development of systems to promote evidence-based psychological therapies, innovative early intervention programs, new e-health strategies, supported housing, community-based acute care and post-treatment recovery services.2-4,7-12 Since 1996, the provision of services by specialist psychiatrists declined by 6.5%, while out-of-pocket costs to those receiving care increased by 48%.13 Consequently, much of the work of providing mental health care has remained on the shoulders of general practitioners poorly supported by both public and privately funded specialist systems.2-4

. . . it is equally clear that the last decade of achievements has not been enough to build an adequate system of mental health care. Reforms across the country are uneven and some jurisdictions remain way behind, having made relatively little progress over the ten years.8

Christopher Pyne, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, 2005.

Fortunately, because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, we now have a new whole-of-government mental health plan.14 This plan is broadly consistent with community priorities.1,2,15 It emphasises prevention and early intervention, and active management of those with comorbid alcohol or substance misuse. It recognises the private health and community sectors, builds sustainable partnerships with community service providers, and engages other relevant government bodies (employment, housing, education, social welfare and justice). The plan is backed by substantial new federal government resources ($1.9 billion new monies over 5 years) with possible commitments of up to $2 billion by state and territory governments.4 It seeks to link general practice with better support from medical and non-medical mental health specialists.

Collaborative care

Effective delivery of improved mental health care depends not only on financial support for individual services, but also on administrative and resource support for the most relevant systems of care. For people with common anxiety and depressive disorders who present to primary medical services, the evidence has now made it clear that individualised medical care (or, more commonly, isolated, disorganised and episodic care) is less effective than well planned, integrated and multidisciplinary collaborative care (Box).16-22 Collaborative care is typically described as:

. . . a multifaceted intervention involving combinations of 3 distinct professionals working collaboratively within the primary care setting.16

Collaborative care not only improves depression outcomes at 6 months, but continues to show benefits for up to 5 years. As the authors of a recent meta-analysis noted:

. . . sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care.16

Active promotion of collaborative care also needs to link with other strategies that promote early intervention to teenagers and young adults.2 As over 75% of mental disorders commence before the age of 25 years, reducing the economic, geographical, attitudinal and service organisation barriers for adolescents and young adults is an essential first step.23,24 That is, the system must move to active engagement with incident cases of disorder and, inevitably, provide a wider range of informational, e-health, psychological, social and medical interventions to people who present with earlier stages or less severe forms of illness.23-26

Past research in Australian general practice has indicated that although people aged between 18 and 25 years have the highest rate of mental health problems, they are least likely to be recognised or treated.27,28 Further, the rate of provision of evidence-based psychological therapies to young people is unacceptably low.28 The federal government has responded to these specific problems by establishing “headspace”, Australia’s National Youth Mental Health Foundation (http://www.headspace.org.au/), to lead service-based reforms for young people with mental health and substance misuse problems; over $50 million are committed to the activities of headspace between 2006 and 2009.

Improving the quality of M/SU [mental health and substance use] health care . . . depends upon the effective collaboration of all mental, substance-use, general health care, and other human service providers in coordinating the care of their patients . . . Complementary actions are also needed from government agencies, purchasers, and accrediting bodies to promote the creation of these linkages.1

Recent reforms

Past efforts at major reform have been slowed by active professional resistance, with particular emphasis on retention of poorly coordinated fee-for-service systems. Independent analyses continue to indicate the extent to which individual-provider systems fail to deliver high-quality mental health care.1 A fundamental shift in GP-based mental health care occurred in 2001 with the introduction of the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care scheme (BOiMHC).29 This innovative approach not only linked participating GPs with clinical psychologists, but also: specified the use of evidence-based psychological therapies; required and gave credentials to relevant programs of professional training; and promoted the use of relevant outcome measures. It sought to minimise the traditional barriers of large out-of-pocket expenses (through the use of locally negotiated service contracts between Divisions of General Practice and participating psychologists) and geographical disadvantage (through the organising and recruiting capacity of Divisions of General Practice in outer urban, rural and regional areas).

The positive community response to BOiMHC2,3 and the feedback from the participants (GPs, psychologists and consumers)29-31 were significant factors that supported the case for access to the subsequent Medicare-based scheme that commenced in November 2006. The new Medicare-based scheme now includes a suite of measures designed to increase access to appropriate and affordable forms of evidence-based psychological care,32,33 and is expected to cost over $500 million in the first 5 years of operation. Specifically, by providing Medicare Benefits Schedule rebates for psychological services provided by a large number of clinical and other registered psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists, the Australian Government took a major step towards removing one of the most significant barriers to evidence-based care. Arguably, it is the most important and practical reform in Australian mental health care in the past 15 years.

Failings of the current Medicare-based system

Individual practice may be an impediment to the delivery of high-quality M/SU [mental health and substance use] health care for multiple reasons . . . the ways in which M/SU and other health care providers are separated are more numerous and complex than is the case for other health care generally.1

Despite the successful promotion of collaborative care models through the BOiMHC scheme,29-31 the new Medicare-based system does not overtly continue that process. Unfortunately, it largely reverts to traditional individual fee-for-service structures. Specifically, there are no requirements (or incentives) for collocation of services, recognised internationally as one of the most important practical measures for promoting collaboration.1 There are no requirements for geographical distribution of services, despite the evidence of gross maldistribution of mental health specialist services in Australia2-4,12 and the contribution of lack of mental health services to increased suicide rates in rural and regional communities.10,11 Lack of access to appropriate forms of psychiatric and psychological care among Indigenous people, particularly those in rural and remote communities, has been a continuing feature of Australian mental health systems.2

Responding to considerable complaints by the professions, the previous mandatory requirements for ongoing professional education have been dropped. The three-step plan payment that promoted management of episodes of illness care rather than individual occasions of service will not continue. There are no practice-level or individual-provider incentives for treating patients in greatest need at low or no additional cost. There are no rewards for seeing younger people early in their illness. Assessment of the impact of the program is currently limited to periodic review of utilisation data. Currently available data indicate a very rapid uptake of both the GP care plan items (over 80 000 services in March 2007) and the psychological services (over 100 000 in March 2007).34 Current trends indicate that significant co-payments for services rather than bulk-billing by psychologists are standard practice. To date, it appears that most services are being provided to women aged 30–50 years.

No systematic study of the impact of the new scheme has been built into its design or implementation. As with other government programs, there is an unspecified commitment to ongoing program evaluation. There is no specific plan to build on previous national evaluation strategies, which indicated that increased treatment for depression in primary care was associated with falls in the number of completed suicides.35 To date, the very rapid uptake of the new Medicare items for psychological services, as well as anecdotal feedback from referring GPs and psychiatrists, suggest that the initial beneficiaries of the scheme are largely those who were already receiving these expensive services. As the gap between the rebate for a session of 50 minutes or more delivered by a clinical psychologist ($110) or less-qualified professional ($75) and the recommended professional fee ($186) is still large,36 it is likely that services delivered under this scheme will remain highly concentrated in communities with the capacity to pay. While the Australian Government has signalled its intention, through alternative mechanisms, to help those living in rural and regional areas ($51 million) and younger people ($15 million), the effects of such schemes may be rather limited by comparison with the Medicare-based services.

What needs to happen

Mental, substance-use, and general illnesses are highly interrelated, especially with respect to chronic illness and injury. Improving care delivery and health outcomes for any one of the three depends upon improving care delivery and outcomes for the others.1

We urgently need general practice to be proactive and innovative in developing new service structures that deliver collaborative care, particularly to young people and those in greatest need. Relevant government bodies need to support service providers who embrace change and do not fall back on dislocated, isolated and expensive fee-for-service models. While the new Medicare schemes do provide GPs with greater specialist support, it is not yet clear whether they will benefit patients who do not already have access to care. The professions may well be content, but the community may be poorly served by a failure to support a genuine increase in widespread access to affordable and collaborative care.

Collaborative care models for management of common mental health problems16-22

Collaborative care and other related enhanced or stepped-care models for the management of common mental health problems for people who present to primary care with anxiety or depression consist of:

  • A structured and multifaceted approach based on chronic disease management principles; and,

  • A greater role for non-medical specialists like case managers, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists and other mental health specialists, including occupational therapists or social workers; and,

  • Inclusion of some key organisational and professional components such as:

    • Clinician education

    • Dissemination and implementation of treatment or management guidelines

    • Use of case-screening procedures

    • Reconfiguration of roles within primary care

    • Earliest appropriate use of specialised psychological or psychiatric assessment or brief psychological interventions

    • Case management, reminder systems and other active follow-up schemes (telephone or e-health-based) to enhance continuity of care and adherence to treatments

    • Consultation–liaison or other methods of improving working relationships between primary and specialist/secondary services

    • Formal integration of services, including collocation and common clinical governance schemes

    • Support for patient education, self-monitoring and consumer-based decision tools

  • Ian B Hickie1
  • Patrick D McGorry2

  • 1 Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 ORYGEN Youth Health Research Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: ianh@med.usyd.edu.au

Competing interests:

Ian Hickie and Patrick McGorry are members of the headspace Consortium for the National Youth Mental Health Foundation.

  • 1. United States Institute of Medicine. Committee on Crossing the Quality Chasm: Adaptation to Mental Health and Addictive Disorders. Board on Health Care Services. Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
  • 2. Mental Health Council of Australia. “Not for service”: experiences of injustice and despair in mental health care in Australia. A report of consultations by the Mental Health Council of Australia, and the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Sydney, in association with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Canberra: Mental Health Council of Australia, 2005.
  • 3. Hickie IB, Groom GL, McGorry PD, et al. Australian mental health reform: time for real outcomes. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 401-406. <MJA full text>
  • 4. Hickie IB, Davenport TA, Luscombe GM. Mental health expenditure in Australia: time for affirmative action. Aust N Z J Public Health 2006; 30: 119-122.
  • 5. Council of Australian Governments. Council of Australian Governments Meeting. 14 July 2006. Mental health. http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/140706/index.htm#mental (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 6. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. National mental health plan. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, April 1992. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/8E185E7F3B574CCFCA2572220005FF0D/$File/plan92.pdf (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 7. Steering Committee for the Evaluation of the Second Mental Health Plan 1998–2003. National mental health strategy: evaluation of the second national mental health plan. Prepared for the Australian Health Minister’s Advisory Council. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, March 2003. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/32F3D4FD46CD6E1DCA2571F800067 BE6/$File/eval2.pdf (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 8. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. National mental health report 2005: summary of ten years of reform in Australia’s mental health services under the National Mental Health Strategy 1993–2003. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2005.
  • 9. Andrews G. The crisis in mental health: the chariot needs one horseman [editorial]. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 372-373. <MJA full text>
  • 10. Caldwell TM, Jorm AF, Dear KBG. Suicide and mental health in rural, remote and metropolitan areas in Australia. Med J Aust 2004; 181 (7 Suppl): S10-S14. <MJA full text>
  • 11. Goldney RD, Fisher LJ, Wilson DH, Cheok F. Suicidal ideation and health-related quality of life in the community. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 546-549.
  • 12. Burgess P, Pirkis J, Buckingham B, et al. Mental health needs and expenditure in Australia. Canberra: Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2002.
  • 13. Hickie I, Davenport T, Luscombe G, et al. Is real reform of the Medicare Benefits Schedule for psychiatrists in Australia economically, socially or professionally desirable? Australas Psychiatry 2006; 14: 8-14.
  • 14. Council of Australian Governments. National action plan on mental health 2006–2011. 14 July 2006. http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/140706/docs/nap_mental_health.pdf (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 15. Mental Health Council of Australia. Time for service: solving Australia’s mental health crisis. June 2006. http://www.mhca.org.au/timeforservice/TimeForService.pdf (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 16. Gilbody S, Bower P, Fletcher J, et al. Collaborative care for depression. A cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 2314-2321.
  • 17. Gilbody S, Bower P, Whitty P. Costs and consequences of enhanced primary care for depression. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189: 297-308.
  • 18. Gilbody S, Whitty P, Grimshaw J, et al. Educational and organizational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care. JAMA 2003; 289: 3145-3151.
  • 19. Katon W, Russo J, Von Korff M, et al. Long-term effects of a collaborative care intervention in persistently depressed primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 741-748.
  • 20. Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 1109-1115.
  • 21. Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korrf M, et al. A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53: 924-932.
  • 22. Hickie IB, Davenport TA, Ricci CS. Screening for depression in general practice and related medical settings. Med J Aust 2002; 177 Suppl 3: S111-S116. <MJA full text>
  • 23. Patel V, Flisher AJ, Hetrick S, McGorry P. Mental health of young people: a global public-health challenge. Lancet 2007; 369: 1302-1313.
  • 24. Groom G, Hickie I, Davenport T. Investing in Australia’s future: the personal, social and economic benefits of good mental health. Canberra: Mental Health Council of Australia, 2004.
  • 25. McGorry PD, Hickie IB, Yung AR, et al. Clinical staging of psychiatric disorders: a heuristic framework for choosing earlier, safer and more effective interventions. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2006; 40: 616-622.
  • 26. Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Jorm AF. Delivering interventions for depression by using the internet: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 265.
  • 27. Hickie IB, Davenport TA, Scott EM, et al. Unmet need for recognition of common mental disorders in Australian general practice. Med J Aust 2001; 175 (2 Suppl): S18-S24.
  • 28. Hickie IB, Davenport TA, Naismith SL, et al. Treatment of common mental disorders in Australian general practice. Med J Aust 2001; 175 (2 Suppl) July: S25-S30.
  • 29. Hickie IB, Pirkis JE, Blashki GA, et al. General practitioners’ response to depression and anxiety in the Australian community: a preliminary analysis. Med J Aust 2004; 181 (7 Suppl): S15-S20. <MJA full text>
  • 30. Pirkis J, Stokes D, Morley B, et al. Impact of Australia’s Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program for psychologists. Aust Psychol 2006; 41: 152-159.
  • 31. Morley B, Pirkis J, Sanderson K, et al. Better outcomes in mental health care: the impact of different models of psychological service provision on consumer outcomes. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2007; 41: 142-149.
  • 32. Australian General Practice Network. National primary care initiative. Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care initiative. http://www.adgp.com.au/site/index.cfm?display=2550 (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 33. University of New South Wales Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression. Website for the “Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care Initiative” of the Department of Health and Ageing. Overview: Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care initiative. http://www.crufad.com/phc/overview.htm (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 34. Medicare Australia. Health care providers. Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) item statistics reports. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/dyn_mbs/forms/mbs_tab4.shtml (accessed Jun 2007).
  • 35. Hall WD, Mant A, Mitchell PB, et al. Association between antidepressant prescribing and suicide in Australia, 1991-2000: trend analysis. BMJ 2003; 326: 1008.
  • 36. The Australian Psychological Society [website]. http://www.psychology.org.au/ (accessed Jun 2007).

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.