Budget 2017-18 from a public health perspective
Analyses of federal budgets are typically couched in clichés. Government’s talk about jobs and growth, initiatives, priorities and investments; while oppositions and minor parties respond with the language of not enough, missed opportunities, disappointments and failures.
In regard to public health and health prevention, the 2017-18 Coalition Budget is all of these things.
There are many welcome and positive public health initiatives in the Budget. The Government has listened to the AMA and is investing $5.5 million into an immunisation awareness campaign. There is a further $14 million to expand the National Immunisation Plan to provide catch-up vaccinations to 10-19 year-olds who missed out on childhood vaccinations. These are measures the AMA has been advocating directly with the Government for.
New mental health funding is also welcome. There is $9 million for a telehealth initiative to improve access to psychologists for people living in rural and remote areas, and an extra $15 million for mental health research initiatives. The big ticket item is $80 million of additional funding to maintain community psychosocial services for people with mental illness who do not qualify for the NDIS. This is a very good measure and shows that Health Minister Greg Hunt has taken on-board concerns the AMA and others raised about people falling through the cracks that exist between the NDIS and State and Territory community services.
However, this funding is contingent on the States and Territories matching the Commonwealth’s commitment. The Government said it will allocate the entire $80 million, even if some States or Territories do not sign up to the matched funding offer. In other words, the money will only go to those jurisdictions who offer a matched dollar-for-dollar commitment. What we don’t know is how these funds will be allocated and what happens if a State or Territory does not sign up or provide new money for psychosocial services. Will the people in those jurisdictions be left with no psychosocial supports? I suspect that the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC), the advisory and support body to the COAG Health Council, may be the entity that negotiates this funding measure.
The mental health sector has been encouraged by this Budget and Minister Hunt’s dedication to mental health reform. Preventative health didn’t get the same attention as mental health in this budget. The Prime Minister told the National Press Club in February: “In 2017, a new focus on preventive health will give people the right tools and information to live active and healthy lives.”
There was, therefore, an expectation that this Budget would deliver in key areas of preventative health, most importantly in tackling obesity. The AMA has been calling for a range of initiatives and measures that are urgently needed to address the rise in obesity, and in this respect the cliché of ‘missed opportunity’ is applicable.
There is a $10 million initiative to establish a Prime Minister’s Walk for Life Challenge and a further $5 million for a GPs Healthy Heart partnership with the RACGP to support GPs to encourage patients to lead a healthy lifestyle. These are small but good measures. The AMA has been calling for a national obesity prevention strategy that recognises obesity as a complex problem that can only be addressed through a broad range of measures. The measures announced in the Budget are a start, but fall well short of the funding for community-based initiatives and restrictions on the marketing of junk food and sugary drinks to children that we say are needed to address obesity.
There was no National Alcohol Strategy or any measures that help Australians manage the misuse and abuse of alcohol, and the alcohol-fuelled violence that emergency department staff know all too well.
There were no measures or initiatives that address climate change and health.
The Government has indicated that there will be a ‘third wave’ of preventative health measures, possibly in the next budget. We hope so, because investment in preventative and public health initiatives is smart, cost-efficient and a benefit to future generations.
Director, Public Health