A partial solution: a local mental health authority for the UK.
BACKGROUND: the structural problems of the mental health system in the UK have been analyzed by a number of authors over the past several years as the "reforms" of the health and social service systems have continued (Kavanagh and Knapp, 1995; Mechanic, 1995). In a recent article, Hadley and Goldman (1995) suggest that one possible solution to some of these issues may be the creation of a local mental health authority. Such an authority would consolidate the funding, authority and responsibility in a single entity. We believe this model, which is typical of many local public mental health systems in the US, is at least part of the solution to the current problem of financial and service fragmentation of the current system in the UK. The numerous "reforms" of the health and social service systems (which include the Community Care Act, the development of the Internal Market, GP fundholding and the purchaser-provider split) were not designed for the care of the mentally ill (Han, 1996). These policy changes in the design of health and social services have created a complicated and difficult context in which services must be delivered. Too many agencies play a significant role in the delivery and management of mental health services. Health authorities, social service agencies and GP fundholders are direct and indirect funders of the system while community care trusts, social service agencies and GPs are service providers (Hadley, 1996a). RESULTS AND A PROPOSAL: We believe that the development of local mental health authorities may be part of the solution to the structural and economic problems of the current system in the UK. It is not the answer to limited resources or limited skills, but can create a new structure, which will permit and encourage the cooperation and innovation that is now possible only with unusual effort. Local mental health authorities have a number of crucial characteristics, but, most importantly, they refocus the system on the provision of care to the seriously mentally ill. This is the expressed priority of government, advocates and providers, alike.These new entities could be created at either the purchaser or provider level or, as exists in a number of jurisdictions in the US, at both levels, where a single purchaser may be responsible for multiple consolidated providers. This combination is now the emerging model for innovative services in the US. In the UK, the development of a local mental health authority at the purchaser and/or provider level might be relatively simple. Although the creation of a statutory authority would require primary legislation and is therefore probably not a short-term solution, there appears to be a variety of administrative options that would have the same effect. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY FORMULATION: The creation of a local mental health authority may be a necessary first step towards the development of a coordinated and comprehensive system of care. It seems likely that there is currently more "political" support for the development of a purchaser model but the development of a sophisticated purchsaer is also likely to take considerable time and effort. Although all the structural and policy problems of the mental health system in the UK will not all be solved by local mental health authorities, they may be beneficial if responsibility for mental illness care is to be centralized and fragmentation is to be reduced. Without making structural changes, the best efforts by clinicians, policymakers and managers are most likely to be in vain. Without a clear point of ultimate purchasing and service responsibility, the fragmentation and inefficiency of the current system will remain (Hadley et al., 1996).
Hadley
Trevor R.
TR
Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research, University of Pennsylvania, 3600 Market Street, Room 717, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2648, USA.
Goldman
Howard H.
HH