Outlining the Scope for Public Sector Involvement in Mental Health

The paper documents the large and increasingly important contribution made by mental disorders to the global burden of disease. Disease burden does not provide sufficient justification for public intervention (understood as financing, provision, mandates, regulation or information) in the field of mental health. While there exists cost-effective interventions for some mental health disorders, the existence of such interventions, on their own, does not provide a sufficient basis for public intervention. The popular burden of disease and cost-effectiveness arguments therefore provide a weak foundation upon which to build a case for public intervention - and, a fortiori, for World Bank support to such intervention - in the field of mental health. This paper applies an algorithm for decision-making borrowed from Musgrove (1999) that orders the main criteria for public intervention to the field of mental health. The locus for reform efforts in the field is defined by the gap between the existing and the desirable features of mental health financing and provision.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Beeharry, Girindre, Whiteford, Harvey, Chambers, David, Baingana, Florence
Language:English
en_US
Published: World Bank, Washington, DC 2002-08
Subjects:MENTAL DISEASES, DISEASE BURDEN, MENTAL HEALTH CARE, MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES, MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS AGED, ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL USE, ALGORITHM, ANXIETY, BIPOLAR DISORDER, BURDEN OF DISEASE, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, CATASTROPHIC COSTS, COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, COMMUNITY CARE, COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CARE, CONGENITAL ANOMALIES, COST EFFECTIVENESS, CRIME, DEMENTIA, DEPRESSION, DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS, DIABETES, DISABLED PEOPLE, DRUG USE, ELDERLY CARE, EMPLOYMENT, EPILEPSY, EXTERNALITIES, EXTERNALITY, FAMILY CARE, HEALTH, HEALTH CARE, HEALTH CONDITIONS, HEALTH FINANCING, HEALTH LEGISLATION, HEALTH REFORM, HEALTH SECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH STATUS, HEALTH SYSTEM, HEALTH SYSTEMS, HOSPITALIZATION, HOUSING, INFECTIONS, INFECTIOUS DISEASES, INJURIES, INTERVENTION, MATERNAL HEALTH, MEDICINE, MENTAL DISORDER, MENTAL DISORDERS, MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH FINANCING, MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION, MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, MENTAL ILLNESS, MENTALLY ILL, MENTALLY ILL PERSONS, MORBIDITY, MORTALITY, MORTALITY RATE, MOTIVATION, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS, NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS, NUTRITION, NUTRITION PROGRAMS, NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES, PANIC DISORDER, PARASITIC DISEASES, PATIENTS, POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, PREMATURE DEATH, PRIMARY CARE, PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS, PRIVATE SECTOR, PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOSIS, PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS, PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC SECTOR, SAFETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, SOCIAL SERVICES, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS, SUICIDE, SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, SUICIDE RATES, TRADITIONAL HEALERS, TRAUMATIC STRESS, UNINTENTIONAL INJURIES, WORKERS, WORKPLACE, YOUNG PEOPLE,
Online Access:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2002/08/3492356/outlining-scope-public-sector-involvement-mental-health
https://hdl.handle.net/10986/13761
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The paper documents the large and increasingly important contribution made by mental disorders to the global burden of disease. Disease burden does not provide sufficient justification for public intervention (understood as financing, provision, mandates, regulation or information) in the field of mental health. While there exists cost-effective interventions for some mental health disorders, the existence of such interventions, on their own, does not provide a sufficient basis for public intervention. The popular burden of disease and cost-effectiveness arguments therefore provide a weak foundation upon which to build a case for public intervention - and, a fortiori, for World Bank support to such intervention - in the field of mental health. This paper applies an algorithm for decision-making borrowed from Musgrove (1999) that orders the main criteria for public intervention to the field of mental health. The locus for reform efforts in the field is defined by the gap between the existing and the desirable features of mental health financing and provision.