Better Access criticisms debunked

Criticisms of the Better Access mental health scheme are not justified and it is fulfilling its promise of improving access for patients, a leading psychiatrist says.

Professor Anthony Jorm has admitted he shared the sceptical views of the critics when the Better Access scheme was first introduced but has since changed his mind.

In his submission into the Senate inquiry into mental health which was launched following the Federal government’s planned cuts to the scheme, (see link) Professor Jorm argues that the high cost of the program reflects its popularity with the Australian public and the “previous large unmet demand for psychological therapy”.

He challenges the criticism that GPs are becoming “glorified referrers” through the mental health plans as he insists data shows “patients are generally getting better even though most are not being reviewed by the GP”.

He admits the criticisms relating to a cost blow-out and patient co-payments are justifiable, but argues that co-payments act as a disincentive to the service being overused and without them it could have caused an even greater cost blow-out.

He insists that although uptake is lower in remote areas, the “whole community” has benefited from the scheme and that the “worried well” comprise only a very small minority of Better Access users.

“Better Access has generally fulfilled its promise of improving access, although it needs some tweaking at the edges to reduce remaining inequalities,” he says