Vulnerable Aussies at ‘breaking point'
Vulnerable Australians are at risk of falling through 'growing cracks' in the mental health system as the country's peak psychiatry body calls on the major political parties to step up and commit to addressing gaps in care for those with the most severe mental illnesses.
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) president Elizabeth Moore claimed vulnerable Australians were missing out on care, with major political parties remaining quiet on the issue of specialist care for those with the most severe and complex mental illnesses ahead of the looming federal election.
'Hundreds of vulnerable Australians are missing out on the care they need, but no party has stepped up with a real plan to fix it,' Dr Moore said.
One in five Australians between the ages of 16 and 85 experienced a mental health disorder in the 12 months to February last year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
However about 20 per cent of people delayed or didn't see a health professional for mental health due to the cost during the 2023-24 financial year, data released in November found.
The cost of a first appointment with a psychiatrist at their rooms (not in hospital) – or for patients who haven't seen the specialist in the past 24 months – is about $480, according to the Department of Health and Aged Care's medical costs finder.
Patients typically pay about $243 out of pocket, with $237 paid by Medicare.
The cost of appointments between 30 and 45 minutes for patients is about $400; however, patients typically pay about $142 out of pocket.
Dr Moore said psychiatry waitlists were continuing to grow across the country, leaving emergency departments overwhelmed while people present with 'more complex conditions that take longer and cost more to treat'.
'Public hospitals are under constant pressure, and private hospitals offering psychiatric services are shutting their doors,' Dr Moore said.
'For many Australians, help remains too far away, too long a wait, too expensive or simply unavailable.
Passionate mental health advocate Andy Arnold has shared his tips for reaching out for help.
'Despite repeated warnings, mental health continues to be treated as a subset of general health policy, with no plan to strengthen specialist mental health services.'
RANZCP has called on the major political parties to address industry shortages and make specialist care more affordable, branding it a 'core service, not an optional extra'.
'We need more than vague commitments and piecemeal funding – our mental health system is at breaking point, and without urgent action to bolster all parts of our mental health system, Australians will continue to fall through its growing cracks,' Dr Moore said.
The peak body has also called for funding to be boosted for child and adolescent mental health services and released a scorecard on what Labor, Liberals and Greens have – or haven't – committed to in regards to specialist care.
While it showed Labor had partially committed to addressing psychiatrist shortages and funding for child and adolescent mental health services, the parties had largely avoided the topic of increased Medicare rebates and the introduction of new Medicare Benefits Schedule item numbers to 'reflect the complexity of psychiatry services'.
RANZCP's key MBS ask if for the Medicare rebate to be increased to 100 per cent for Aussies who need to see a psychiatrist.
'Our call to Minister Butler and the federal government is clear – help us help you in providing accessible, affordable and the best possible mental health care to every Australian, regardless of their background or postcode,' Dr Moore said.
Other MBS demands include a new psychiatry 'complex care' item for patients with severe mental health conditions and a new billing item for private practice psychiatry registrars to allow billing without the need for a referral.
ED 'default'
RANZCP Emergency Department Steering Group chair Jacqueline Huber says emergency departments have become the 'default' for people seeking mental health treatment due to the 'chronic' underfunding of community services.
'What we really need is attention to services that treat the most unwell in our community,' Dr Huber told NewsWire.
'Those with psychotic illnesses or in severe psychosocial distress because those are the people most likely to come to the emergency department to seek care.
'We are asking both inpatient and community care to be better funded for those with the most severe mental ill health in our community.'
She said states of 'being unwell' varied, and 'we're not addressing the very acute and very unwell end of the spectrum'.
'If people can't afford a psychiatrist or psychologist, their symptoms are likely to escalate and their distress can become so acute that they could become suicidal and of course come to the emergency department,' Ms Huber said.
Major party commitments
Labor has announced a suite of measures in the mental health sector over the last few years, including $708m towards extending vocational training for specialist mental health registrars outside traditional metropolitan teaching hospitals.
It's understood about $117m of that figure is for psychiatrists.
Other measures include an additional $40.5m to be invested to increase the psychiatry workforce over four years, with the government last year announcing it would up the number of postgraduate psychology spots at universities as well as bring about more psychology internships and supervisors.
The government also put forth $69m last month for support for those affected by suicide and distress while rolling out the National Suicide Prevention Strategy 2025-35 and committed to restoring bulk-billed video telehealth psychiatry sessions in 2022.
A free mental health counselling service is also set to be rolled out under Medicare from January next year.
The service would allow Aussies to access support over the phone and online for free.
A spokesperson for Health Minister Mark Butler said the government was 'reforming the health system so that everyone can get the mental health care and support they need'.
'We are introducing new mental health services and building the workforce so people can get advice and support when they're in distress and professional care for more complex mental health needs,' the spokesperson said.
'The Albanese government is addressing the challenges faced by the psychiatry profession by investing over $200m to increase workforce and skillset through expanded training opportunities.'
However, the spokesperson did not disclose or comment on any specific election sweeteners.
The opposition matched Labor's $8.5bn election pledge to boost bulk-billed GP visits and raised it by another half a billion dollars, including $500m for bulk-billed mental health appointments.
The Coalition would also lift the available Medicare rebated mental health sessions from 10 to 20.
However, Mr Butler earlier claimed reinstating the 10 additional sessions could create a 'bottleneck in the system'.
Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston said the Coalition would 'restore full access to Medicare-subsidised mental health support on a permanent basis as Australia's mental health experts have been calling for' if elected.
'We will make further announcements in due course as we near the election,' Ms Ruston said.
The Greens previously announced they would introduce 'free' mental healthcare by removing the cap on subsidised psychologist sessions, bring in new local health clinics to allow Aussies to see psychologists for free, and create more pathways for mental healthcare plans.
Don't go it alone. Please reach out for help.
Lifeline: 13 11 14 or lifeline.org.au
Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636 or beyondblue.org.au
Kids Helpline: 1800 55 1800 or kidshelpline.com.au
Headspace: 1800 650 890 or headspace.org.au
13YARN: Speak to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander crisis supporter on 13 92 76 or visit 13yarn.org.au
Are you anxious? Take the Beyond Blue quiz to see how you're tracking and whether you could benefit from support
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board should give RFK more credit in his campaign against sugar
In reference to the editorial 'As sugar is attacked, Chicago candymaker Ferrara keeps the Nerds coming' (May 27), the Tribune Editorial Board should do more research and also admit some harsh realities concerning sugar consumption. Is the board aware that about 1 in 5 children are classified as obese, some severely so? Sadly, many parents don't have the heart to deprive their children of something considered by society (and the board) as a 'treat.' But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy so accurately pointed out, it is a form of poison and an addictive one at that. Just examine the percentage of people suffering the effects of Type 2 diabetes. That one disease alone accounts for enormous health care costs — costs that the government must absorb when a patient is on Medicare or Medicaid. So, the government indeed has a vested interest in controlling the manufacturing and consumption of sugar. Ferrara Candy Co. CEO Katie Duffy stated that 'everything we produce is safe to eat.' That does not mean it is 'healthy' to eat! The board states that it has 'long recoiled against Uncle Sam telling Americans what to eat.' And that 'if a food product is safe from a scientific standpoint, the government has no business blocking it from the marketplace.' Again, that ignores the fact that the government shares some of the burden for the cost of medical care for the health disorders caused by sugar consumption. And just to enlighten the board further, pay for the government. So, it costs us all as a whole. The board further states that 'armed with that information, we believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions without Nanny State intervention.' The board has to be joking. It gives people far more credit than they deserve. Sugar is being consumed in quantities that most people are not likely aware of. And that is what I think Kennedy is trying to address. I appreciate what he is trying to achieve, and the board should as well. Keep in mind that a country is only as strong and as healthy as its people. We have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Don't gloss over the facts in the name of some false sense of sovereignty over and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is absolutely correct about the American diet. There's too much salt, sugar and bad fat; not enough fiber; and too many additives. The consequences are substantial: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer and more. He is dead wrong about vaccinations, 'dead' not being just an expression: People are going to die, needlessly. During a measles epidemic in Samoa, Kennedy campaigned against vaccination; too few people were vaccinated, thousands got sick and dozens died. Almost all healthy individuals who get measles completely recover. About 1 in 1,000, however, will have serious complications or die. Great odds in a casino but not for a preventable disease. In contrast, there have been no reports of the measles vaccine causing death in healthy people, and the incidence of permanent harm is less than 1 in 500,000. Kennedy's efforts to restrict the messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is not based on credible evidence of significant harm. Worldwide, at least 5 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccinations, including hundreds of millions of Americans. Many have sore arms, and some, brief flulike illness. Very rarely does serious short-term illness occur. In contrast, more than 1 million Americans have died from COVID-19, and 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with long COVID-19, sometimes with debilitating symptoms. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have dramatically lower rates of hospitalization, death and long COVID-19. Kennedy proposes a clinical trial against a placebo to test the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. In any clinical trial, when the drug being studied against a placebo is found to be safe and effective, the trial is stopped. The safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine has already been proved; there is no need for a trial. Kennedy's proclamation restricting recommending who should receive the vaccination is medical idiocy. Infants have poorly developed immune systems and are very vulnerable to infections, including COVID-19. If pregnant women are vaccinated, their babies get some protection against COVID-19. Being under 65 is no guarantee against COVID-19 causing hospitalization or death, and the incidence of some forms of long COVID-19 is actually higher in young people. It is worth noting that Kennedy made these recommendations on his own without input from recognized experts. There is a new COVID-19 variant, and the need for vaccinations is still great. When the Senate confirmed Kennedy, it failed the American J. Medley's letter ('What our nation needs,' May 29) regarding President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which has been passed by the House, is on point but misses one very important issue. This bill contains a buried provision seeking to limit courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from enforcing their rulings or orders. In short, it states: 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.' What I have read says that this means the courts cannot enforce decisions unless the plaintiffs have posted a bond. Federal courts do not require plaintiffs to post bonds; therefore, this provision would mean that the courts would not be able to enforce their rulings. And Trump and his administration could proceed to do anything they want to, regardless of whether it is unconstitutional. When setting up the federal government, our Founding Fathers did not feel any one person should have all the power. Therefore, they set up a government of three equal parts: executive (president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). Trump has already taken over the legislative aspect — with no pushback from the Republican majority — by overturning many aspects of the government and funding that had previously been put in place by Congress. Now he wants to make judicial rulings unenforceable. If Trump does that, he will be king. This country was developed as a democracy, and I believe the majority of Americans do not want a king. Readers should call their senators and demand this bill not be passed with this provision in it. Save our democracy and our Constitution!I'm thrilled National Public Radio has legally challenged the administration's misguided executive order targeting its appropriately sourced federal funds and relationships with local stations. I've grown accustomed to the measured objectivity and factual analysis of the reporting through daily programs such as 'All Things Considered' and 'Morning Edition.' We financially support NPR's frequent funding drives, the real lifeblood of its operations, not only because its revenues significantly rely on voluntary contributions by listeners, but also due to its prize-winning journalism that opens our eyes to hard-hitting domestic and international news analysis. The president's bizarre claims that NPR fails to provide 'fair, accurate or unbiased' programming can be summarily rejected by those who actually listen to the variety of viewpoints included. NPR routinely covers important events like it did with the president's speech to a joint session of Congress in March and even presented rare audio of Supreme Court oral arguments about the birthright citizenship case, followed by riveting independent coverage. Cutting this funding is more than just a violation of free speech. America should refrain from emulating autocratic leaders in other societies that deliberately silence views it does not Public Radio is suing President Donald Trump's administration because it stopped taxpayer funding to the network; NPR contends that curtails its free speech. What nonsense. NPR remains free to utter what it wants, but the public does not need to pay for it. NPR can fund itself and say whatever it pleases. Its reflexive lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious without merit.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
My company transferred me from Chicago to London. Here's how my lifestyle and the work culture compare.
Marketing professional Kira West moved from her company's Chicago office to its London office. West said she adjusted to some big changes, including salary, healthcare, and work-life balance. She considers living in the UK a welcome change. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Kira West, a Brooklyn native and lifestyle content creator who relocated to London in January. The following has been edited for length and clarity. I work in marketing and the travel tech industry. I've also long considered living overseas. Having professional experience internationally is valuable, and luckily, I work for a global company, which is partly what attracted me to moving from Chicago to London. Still, it didn't just happen overnight: There were years of conversations, months and months of paperwork, and lots of approvals required to make this happen. Once I finally moved to the UK in January, I also had to adjust to some big changes between life here in London and life back in the US. I knew that moving from Chicago to the UK would lower my annual income I make less than what I made in Chicago, which is a common reality. On average, people in the US make about 50% more than people in the UK. I was also surprised when I heard that I'd get paid monthly. I thought, Come again? My American mentality was definitely showing. It hasn't been a major adjustment for me, though, because I pride myself on saving and budgeting, and the UK feels more affordable. While London is a major city, which means it generally has a higher cost of living, I found that compared to the US, at least, expenses associated with housing, groceries, and other services are way more affordable. Healthcare costs are significantly lower in the UK compared to the US Here in the UK, I pay about £300 a month for national insurance (tax based on my income), which helps fund public services like the National Health Service (NHS). This converts to about $405. Since moving to London, I've easily connected with my general practitioner twice — once virtually and once via phone — and I've gone through the NHS three times, for a total of about five medical visits. I've also had a few private appointments for physical and mental health as well as acupuncture, and they've been great. I never pay out of pocket when I rely on services through the NHS, but I also opt for a private healthcare plan through my company, which is typically helpful for booking faster appointments. My company pays the medical bill, and I pay the taxes. I've also made private appointments without applying my insurance, and the services are still affordable. Plus, I always know the cost up front. In the States, I paid more than $125 a month on insurance plans, and then I'd go to the doctor and still always have a copay, or I'd have to pay for something that my insurance didn't cover — a $74 cleaning bill from the dentist, for example. Also, roughly $88 toward Medicare and $378 toward Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, neither of which I actually used, were deducted from each paycheck. My husband and I moved away from our friends, family, and comfort zones, which is really tough You can't replace people, and that's definitely difficult. In general, the laws are different in the UK. Getting a bank account here and all of the logistics around moving have been tricky. It's hard to know where to begin, and there's a lot of paperwork needed to start an account. I got lucky moving for work — I was able to get in contact with HSBC Bank. It works with a ton of expats, so it's used to laying things out and shipping things overseas, like a bank card. I was set up with the basics of my account before we got here. The credit card application process was really complex. I went with Amex because I have an Amex card in the States, so I knew it would be easier for me to get approved to start building credit in the UK. While I worked on my credit in the States, and it's in a solid place, it doesn't matter here. It can be both humbling and exciting to start over. I'll go back to the US, perhaps, one day to make sure my US credit is in a solid place, but for what I'm doing daily in the UK it's irrelevant. When it comes to housing, references are really important — where I'm currently living, they called my landlord in Chicago to see how I was as a tenant, which I've never had in the States. The market moves very quickly in London, so we had to be prepared to make quick choices and, in the absence of credit, they did more than a standard criminal background check — they also confirmed my employer, and there was much more paperwork than I'm used to. Politics is one of the things I'm very grateful to have left in the US I think it's refreshing to be in a place where conversations around politics don't feel as tense. Politics isn't a topic I choose to delve into openly because of my mental health. Also, since I moved after the election, the topic hasn't come up for me as much. On another note, there's a big conversation happening in the UK right now about immigrants, which is what I'm considered, and proposed changes that could make living here as an immigrant harder. I think there's also some trepidation around the long-term plans of expats. I'm used to conversations about immigration, but it's interesting to be on the other side of it as an immigrant versus someone who is settled, like I was, in the US as a citizen. Ultimately, I'm choosing to see how it shakes out and enjoy my time for now. If the rules around settlement in the UK change, then I'll address it as it becomes more real. Work culture feels more accommodating Work-life balance as a concept isn't a fallacy here; it's a very real thing. It's been refreshing not to have a life that's centered on work, but a life that includes work. It also feels easier and more affordable to go somewhere epic for a weekend. On bank holiday weekends, I've been doing Friday to Monday trips — I recently went to Greece and could really unplug. I definitely feel more comfortable taking time off in the UK. There are also more family-friendly benefits like maternity leave and statutory sick pay, which help to keep everyone more focused on their boundaries. It's been a really welcome change. The older I get, the more I realize there's just so much more to life outside of working. If you relocated to a different country for work and would like to share your story, please email this editor, Manseen Logan, at mlogan@
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Bill Clinton Weighs in on Joe Biden's Health
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, attend the funeral service of former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman at Washington National Cathedral Wednesday, May 14, 2025 in Washington. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, attend the funeral service of former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman at Washington National Cathedral Wednesday, May 14, 2025 in Washington. Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Bill Clinton has weighed in on Joe Biden's health, saying he never doubted the former president's mental state once. Biden was diagnosed with an "aggressive form" of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone, his office revealed on May 18, after Biden faced significant scrutiny over his health throughout his presidency and during his brief 2024 reelection campaign. The news has sparked speculation about whether Biden and the White House knew about his declining health earlier while carrying out a cover-up. But Clinton has said Biden was in "good shape" when he saw him last. "I saw President Biden not very long ago, and I thought he was in good shape," he told CBS Sunday Morning. "I had never seen him and walked away thinking, he can't do this anymore." He went to say that he had not read Original Sin, a book written by CNN journalist Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in which several named insiders claim the former U.S. president was faltering physically and cognitively in a decline that was hidden from the American public. "I didn't want to because he's not president anymore, and I think he did a good job," Clinton said. "I think we are facing challenges today with our president in our history. And some people are trying to use this as a way to blame him for the fact that Trump was reelected." This is a developing story - more to follow.
