What political party has the strongest policy on mental health?

Kooli

While trying to decide who to vote for, I would be interested to know if any party has a particularly good record in promoting, prioritising and funding mental health services, or if any party has mentioned it in their policies for the upcoming election?

I know it's very lazy of me not to go on each party's website and read all their policy documents, but I find those things so hard to read as they use so many words to say so little!

JuliusCaesar

Strangely, I got an email from some FF TD the other day, telling me how great FF was for implementing Vision for Change. My ars*. I couldn't believe it. Those of us who WORK in mental health KNOW how well V4C has been implemented in the last 5 years......

sambuka41

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf

Here is Fine Gael's manifesto, dont know how to quote but mental health is 13.6. Not much in it. :rolleyes:

the optimist

Fine Gael’s FairCare Health Strategy will eliminate long waiting lists, end the unfair public-private two-tier system and replace it with a universal health insurance system based on the renowned Dutch model. FairCare offers equal access to all. There will be a greater emphasis on diagnosis and treatment in the community with increased chronic illness care and more rehabilitation and convalescence facilities ensuring shorter hospital stays. Funding of hospitals will be radically overhauled where money follows the patient – so no patient means no payment for the hospital.
Having worked in Holland for a couple of years and seeing how this model works I will definitely be voting for Fine Gael.
Why should your neighbour next door get a higher standard of care just because he can afford it. I think this is a fairer health plan and I also remember that there were no queues in hospitals or doctor surgeries. I never had to pay more than the small amount taken from my wage packet every week and this covered everything including prescriptions. If you were on a social welfare payment it was taken out of that too before you received it. A fairer system allround and I would love to see Ireland following suit

JuliusCaesar

Who's against Universal Health Insurance?

Labour Party: http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/1297162749855409.html

Universal Health Insurance: Irish-style

When Labour's reform is complete, the following will be the key elements of the system:

Universal primary care insurance instead of the medical card system and payment out of pocket.
Universal hospital care insurance instead of the two-tier system of private and public patients.
Public and private hospital care insurers who purchase hospital care for you from competing public and private hospitals and clinics.
A new public insurer created by combining the National Treatment Purchasing Fund and the purchasing arm of the HSE, both of which currently fund public patient care.
The right to change insurer.

Sinn Fein: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18672

Launching its health manifesto for the forthcoming election, the party said that its core proposal is for a new universal public healthcare system that provides care to all free at the point of delivery and on the basis of need alone.

This would be funded from ‘fair and progressive taxation' and a Health Funding Commission would be established to help plan the transition to this new system.

The party said that in the short-term, it would abolish the controversial 50 cent per item prescription charge for medical card patients that was introduced last year.

I'm sure I could find more if I was bothered to search more.

I think Fianna Fail will be the only ones against it still! And they do so, still on the grounds of low tax.

Fine Gael has presented the Dutch insurance model as the answer to all our problems. What is not mentioned is that in the Netherlands a couple on a joint income of €50,000 pays over €5,500 in health payments

When will they get it into their heads that if we had a decent health service for all, we wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax! After all, how much does a couple pay in VHI or Aviva in a year?

Wolfe Tone

Well Adams was the only one who mentioned it during the debate...


Its shocking that this is even an issue

Velvety

I came across a nice little table in the Irish Times yesterday that has a breakdown of each party's stance.

FF:

Will reform and reconfigure mental health services in line with the recommendations of A Vision for Change as well as developing services to reduce the levels of suicide.

FG:

Will increase funding on suicide prevention from €3.5 million per annum to €10 million per annum over the lifetime of the next government.

Labour:

Will commission a study in consultation with mental health professionals to determine how best to integrate mental health services into the universal health insurance system.

Greens:

Will ensure a minimum of 12 per cent of the health budget is spent on mental health and ensure adequate support services for mental health are put in place as part of all primary care teams.

SF:

Will ringfence 12 per cent of the annual health budget for mental health services and will promote suicide prevention strategies.

12 per cent is a big increase, right? I thought I read somewhere that mental health services only accounted for something like 5% of the HSE's annual budget. I know that the overall budget of the HSE is being dramatically cut so there may not be any net gain but it still seems encouraging. I find it a bit strange that so many parties make specific reference to suicide prevention. I would have thought that was one of the better funded and more visible support services.

Odysseus

I'm very bad on politics but as a clinician who works in the public sector I could not justify voting FG as they keep saying they want more cuts rom the public sector. Which apart from the money in pocket side of things; must include continuing the refusal to replace staff who retire or leave for other reasons. In my team of therapist's which cover the South/W area of Dublin/Kildare we have lost 4 people out of a group of 15; which is nrearly a third, none have been replaced. When I moved to my current position over 9 years ago, we had three and a half posts. We have been down to two for the past few years. Now due to over areas being short the powers to be want to move one of us. Apart from our base in other words our main clinic there are four other community clinics in our area where we supply varying forms of clinical services. Now they want that work to be done by one therapist. The rate of addiction is not in decline in my area, if anything it's increasing.

Now I know my above example is based upon a HSE decision, but that decision is based upon the policies that include reducing the amount of staff, which in my understanding will not only be continued with FG but will actually be increased. I know the statement is being used a lot but it would be like turkeys voting for x-mas. However, I still don't know how I will vote.

Kooli

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm very bad on politics but as a clinician who works in the public sector I could not justify voting FG as they keep saying they want more cuts rom the public sector. Which apart from the money in pocket side of things; must include continuing the refusal to replace staff who retire or leave for other reasons. In my team of therapist's which cover the South/W area of Dublin/Kildare we have lost 4 people out of a group of 15; which is nrearly a third, none have been replaced. When I moved to my current position over 9 years ago, we had three and a half posts. We have been down to two for the past few years. Now due to over areas being short the powers to be want to move one of us. Apart from our base in other words our main clinic there are four other community clinics in our area where we supply varying forms of clinical services. Now they want that work to be done by one therapist. The rate of addiction is not in decline in my area, if anything it's increasing.

Now I know my above example is based upon a HSE decision, but that decision is based upon the policies that include reducing the amount of staff, which in my understanding will not only be continued with FG but will actually be increased. I know the statement is being used a lot but it would be like turkeys voting for x-mas. However, I still don't know how I will vote.

It's a tricky one. I'm public sector as well, but I do realise that the public sector needs to be cut, it just cannot go on as it is. I just wish someone would take the tough decisions to make smart cuts - get rid of all the waste, rather than lazy cuts like just not replacing people who leave, thereby having NO control over where the cuts happen, leaving essential services totally decimated, while other public sector and civil service staff sit twiddling their thumbs all day not doing any work.

JuliusCaesar

Velvety wrote: »

12 per cent is a big increase, right? I thought I read somewhere that mental health services only accounted for something like 5% of the HSE's annual budget.

Yes it is. IIRC, the current spend on mental health is 6% of the overall health budget, down from 8%.

Velvety wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that so many parties make specific reference to suicide prevention. I would have thought that was one of the better funded and more visible support services.

Suicide and suicide prevention have had a high profile in recent years. There has been very visible funding, but it's the usual 'Who shouts loudest' approach to funding - that is, very little of it is evidence based.

Historically, psychiatry has been about the treatment (or control) of psychoses. Opening 'mental health' (a bit of a misnomer) to what used to be called the neuroses massively increases its patient base, most of whom require personal therapy, whether one-to-one or group. This make it staff-heavy...and expensive. Arguably less expensive than paying for medication (SSRIs are very expensive), but in the current climate of calling the public service 'bloated' and 'over-staffed', it looks bad.

whiteonion

If I was allowed to vote in this country I would want to vote for a party that slashes the budget for "mental health". I consider psychiatrists to be nothing more than modern witch doctors and they should not recieve any subsidies.

I have given a warning on this post. This is a Science forum.
Mod

CiaranMT

whiteonion wrote: »

If I was allowed to vote in this country I would want to vote for a party that slashes the budget for "mental health". I consider psychiatrists to be nothing more than modern witch doctors and they should not recieve any subsidies.

I have given a warning on this post. This is a Science forum.
Mod

What do you base your 'witch-doctor' consideration on?

whiteonion

Is there any evidence that more money put into different mental health will improve the mental health of people in this country? The more money you spend on psychiatry the more people you seem to have hooked on psychiatric drugs that are proven to be addictive and sometimes have severe side effects, however I see no evidence to prove that it will improve mental health as such.

Kooli

whiteonion wrote: »

Is there any evidence that more money put into different mental health will improve the mental health of people in this country? The more money you spend on psychiatry the more people you seem to have hooked on psychiatric drugs that are proven to be addictive and sometimes have severe side effects, however I see no evidence to prove that it will improve mental health as such.

Well obviously because this is the psychology forum I'm sure most of us would be looking for more funding to be allocated to psychological services so that people who are in need can access it easily, quickly and at low cost.

Psychiatric services are a separate matter, although my experience has been that those in dire and urgent need of psychiatric care can have a real battle on their hands getting access to hospital, to an extent that would never be experienced by someone experiencing say cardiac or respiratory difficulties...

Odysseus

Kooli wrote: »

Well obviously because this is the psychology forum I'm sure most of us would be looking for more funding to be allocated to psychological services so that people who are in need can access it easily, quickly and at low cost.

Psychiatric services are a separate matter, although my experience has been that those in dire and urgent need of psychiatric care can have a real battle on their hands getting access to hospital, to an extent that would never be experienced by someone experiencing say cardiac or respiratory difficulties...

I agree the best my service can offer for someone at risk of suicide in the immediate time after assessing it is a referral to A&E obliviously we do our own follow up, but that is the reality of the situation. When they go to A&E they often have to wait up to 12hrs to be seen. As you highlighted it's a different ball game as opposed to a physical medical issue, it's even worse for my guys as addicts still have to face a lot of prejudices when they present, it’s a bit of a generalisation but it still does happen.

We have a visiting psych that come to our dual diagnosis clinic once a week, but even then he is in the same position, if someone needs to be admitted the best he can do is a referral letter and a phone call, admission cannot be taken for granted.

As for this meds issue that was brought up, tbh if you regularly seen people who may need to medicated quickly, you start to see the other side of the coin. Where meds brings stability in a person’s life that enables them to in turn engage in psychological therapy then I'm in favour of them. However, even though I work in the Addiction Services I'm not interested in what drugs a person may be taking, whether prescribed or not. The effects and consequences of it yes, but if a person is on meds; that would be a medical issue not a psychological one from my viewpoint.

Edit: Just to add Addiction used to be a big issue around elections, but that has changed now and it's been pushed down the agenda significantly.

hotspur

With the turn this thread has taken this seminar on Wednesday week may be of some interest to some:
http://www.seminars.ie/inspirational-seminars/seminar_details.php?event_id=200

dissed doc

Velvety wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that so many parties make specific reference to suicide prevention. I would have thought that was one of the better funded and more visible support services.

No, the opposite in fact. Mental Health funding used to receive 15-20% of the health budget back in the 60s, but that was gradually eroded to it's now 5% of the budget, and no facilities (well, bare minimum as they were all sold and money put towards helicopters/quangos, etc., ). In tandem, social services were also cut significantly over the past 10-15 years and are mostly skeleton-crews of what have been recommended models for mental health difficulties prevention.

JuliusCaesar

dissed doc wrote: »

Mental Health funding used to receive 15-20% of the health budget back in the 60s

One of the reasons for the large spend on MH in the 1960s was that we had a huge institutional population. Primary care in mental health didn't exist.


However, here's from a TASC thinkpiece on Mental Health:

One of the characteristics of our political system is the presence of an ever- increasing number of interest groups and lobbyists all with competing demands as to how the state ́s resources should optimally be allocated. During a recession, such as the one we are now experiencing, these demands become ever more frantic. It is therefore imperative to try and construct a sound economic case as to why it is imperative mental health receives adequate resources. Should we fail to do so, we risk even greater expenditure on health care treatment as well as increased lost economic output in the future.