An influential committee of MPs released a damning report today into the state of Britain’s mental health system. They found that only 1 in 4 people could access the mental health services they needed.
The cross-party Public Account Committee, in charge of making sure the Government spends money efficiently, said pressure on NHS budgets would make the Department of Health’s new mental health standards ‘difficult to achieve’ without taking money away from other services.
The Department of Health has pledged £1bn over 5 years to improve mental health provision but this is not ring-fenced. With the current financial pressures across the NHS, it will be tempting for NHS managers to use that money to plug short-term holes rather than invest in long-term mental health provision.
Specific problems cited in the report include:
- A lack of counselling in some schools meaning many miss the chance to have their symptoms identified early – half of those who experience mental health problems do so before the age of 14
- Variability in the provision of services – in some areas 99% of people are seen in 6 weeks, in others it is just 7%
- Lack of access to mental health care for current and former prisoners – 9/10 prisoners have a mental health problem, 7/10 have two or more
The Public Account Committee recommended, among other things, that the Department of Health and NHS England did the following:
- Figure out how much money they needed to pay for its mental health program, and which areas of spending they prioritised
- Join up services across government to improve continuity of care for those with mental health needs e.g. housing, social care
- Work out how many extra nurses and additional staff they would require to roll out their programs
Why these things were not done prior to rolling out new nationwide standards is not recorded. However, they do show a continuation of the Department of Health’s remarkably lax approach to planning ahead and gathering evidence, as shown by this argument from their lawyer in yesterday’s court case regarding junior doctor contracts.