4.+Mental+Health+Programs+in+Other+Governments

**Do other governments have this similar law?** What can we learn from them?
 * __ Guidelines for contributions: __**
 * How did each one fare?

__Mindset:__ ** **The research here should help us make some benchmark in judging the effectivity of this proposed bill.**

Seventy five percent of countries around the world have mental health legislation and half of it have laws passed after 1990. only 15% have legislation dating to the pre-1960s.
 * Katheleen Toribio**

The need for mental health legislations comes from an increasing education of the personal, social and economic burdens of mental disorders worldwide. Legislation can ensure adequate and appropriate care and treatment, protection of human rights of people with mental disorders and promotion of mentalhealth of populations. It is also a good opportunity to raise awareness of mental health and educate policymakers and the public about human rights issues, s tigma and discrimination.

According to WHO there are 3 different ways of approaching Mental health legislation. First of which is to have no separate mental helath legislation, that is provisiosn related to mental health are inserted into other relevant legislation. By this way Having no separate mental health legislation reduces stigma and emphasizes community integration of those with mental health disorders and benefits a much wider constituency. However, continuing not to have such kind of klegislation makes it diffucult to ensure the coverage is all legislative aspects relevant to persons with mental disorders. Also, procedural processes aimed at protecting the human rights of people with mental disorders can be quite detailed and complex and may be inaappropriae in legislation other than a specific mental health law. It requires more legislative time because of the need for multiple amendments to existing legislation. Secondly, there could be a consolidated mental health legislation. Advantages of which includes: Having ease in the enactment and adoption without the need for multiple amendments to existing laws; providing opportunity to raise public awareness during the process of drafting, adopting and implementing consolidated legislation. On the other handm consolidated legislation emphasizes segregation of mental health and persons with mental disorders hence causing stigma and prejudice. WHO emphasizes that there is negligible evidend that the latter is better thatn the former approach. The third or combined approach, involving the incorporation of mental health issues into other legialtion as well a having specific mental health law is most likely able to address the complexity of mental health and the needs of mental health patients.

Sources: (for all my contributions as of 08/28/09) Conde, Bernardo. Philippine Mental Health Country Profile.pdf. Viewed August 20 2009.

Reyes, Wilfredo R. Review of Existing Laws and Executive Orders that Articulate Mental Health Concerns. []. Viewed on August 27 2009.

(Janice M. Cabusas)
 * AUSTRALIA’S SUCCESFUL STRATEGY**

The National Mental Health Policy was adopted by all Australian states, territories and the Federal government in April 1992. The Policy, implemented through a series of 5-year National Mental Health Plans, became known as the National Mental Health Strategy. This Strategy represented the first attempt to coordinate nationally the development of public mental health services. As in other Western nations, rapid reduction in psychiatric beds within Australia’s public mental health system began during the mid 1960. ‘Dinstitutionalization’ in Australia was driven by a combination of new drug treatments, clinical practice developments and the emergence of the human rights movement that advocated the abolition of systems that isolated people with disabilities from the mainstream community. Overcrowding in mental health facilities was widespread, with wards built to cater for 25 people often housing up to 100 patients. However, the reduction in size of hospitals that began in the 1960s occurred in a policy environment that did not provide safeguards to ensure that alternative community services were developed to replace the functions of the shrinking institutions. The National Mental Health Strategy was conceived in part to respond to this legacy created by extensive bed reductions and attempted to set a coherent direction that would guide future reform. The Strategy was agreed to by all Australian Health Ministers in 1992 and Expanding the proportion of acute psychiatric inpatient care provided in general hospitals rather than separate psychiatric hospitals; __ • ____ Including integrated mental health services within the mainstream organizational __ __ arrangements for general health services; __ • Ensuring that each State, Territory and area/region had a plan for the mix of services available to its population; • Reducing the size of, or closing, existing psychiatric hospitals and at the same time providing sufficient alternative acute hospital, accommodation and community based services; __ • ____ Increasing the number and range of community based supported accommodation __ __ services and ensuring an adequate range of services to meet consumer needs. __ • __ promotion and prevention; __ • partnerships in service reform and delivery; and • quality and effectiveness.

( **the highlighted area shows significant similarity to the aims being forwarded by HB 6679)** An assessment conducted by international experts mid-way through the second plan concluded that the National Mental Health Strategy and its First and Second National Mental Health Plans reflected “exemplary mental health policy leadership that have produced significant achievements in mental health at all levels throughout Australia.” Among the chief accomplishments highlighted by the international consultants were “the integration of mental health assessments and interventions in mainstream health delivery and the authentic inclusion of consumers and carers in mental health policy development at every level.” According to the international review, Australia, in many ways, “ leads the world in mental health __promotion, mental illness prevention, early intervention initiatives, and stigma__ __ reduction,” __

Jessene Mariano, **Mental Health in the United States** (will add more info later)

There are Advocacy Programs in the United States helping people who suffer from mental illnesses. These programs help in the form of counseling, intercession, client representation, etc. Each state has their own advocacy office. Though the centers are not really related to each other, they all have the same goal--to help restore these people suffering from mental disorders. (Source: About.com, //US State Advocacy Programs//, viewed September 9, 2009 [])

In November 2004, The Mental Health Services Act was passed in the State of California as Proposition 63 on the ballot. This act aims to provide mental health care for children, adults and seniors who are residing in the state of California. The MHSA provided $2.1 billion for mental health funding from 2004 to 2007. The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission was established as a panel responsible for review and approval of the local mental health plans in California. They had their first meeting on July 7, 2005 in Sacramento and they hold regular quarterly meetings.

It is impressive how the state of California can allot a huge amount of money for the mental health funding alone. This is one of the top priorities of the California state, considering there are a lot of crimes which resulted from untreated mental illnesses.

(Sources: ALL VIEWED 9/9/2009 ) Mental Health Services Act[| http://www.dmh.cahwnet.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/docs/Mental_Health_Services_Act_Full_Text.pdf] Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission homepage [] MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION Goals, Procedures and Rules of Operation Adopted 1/27/06 [] Background Information on the Mental Health Services Act (Prop. 63) []

(*note: Jeric, please edit yung sources part ko. I can't edit it ng maayos here on wiki eh. If you can, please ha. Thanks ^^)

-- Source: The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (2004). Mental Health Policies and Programs in Selected Countries, //Interim report on mental health, mental illness and addiction// From []

 In Ghana country in Africa, there is already a bill concerning mental health but still expecting for the passage of the new mental health bill. According to Dr. Akwasi Osei, Chief Psychiatrist at the Accra Psychiatric Hospital (APH), "the passage of the Mental Health Bill will be the only instrument to ensure the independence of the mental health service to ensure the efficient and effective management of resources and the implementation of sound policies to enhance quality service delivery". He said that the only solution to uplift mental health care in Ghana is the passage of the new bill. "Currently we are operating with an outmoded law-NRCD 30 of 1972 and that is a major challenge. Consequently there is stigmatization and inadequate human resource. Mental health care is only institution based instead of community based," he lamented. He added that human rights issues are not mentioned and prayer camp owners have a field day. He said the new law seeks to overhaul mental health care in Ghana. Under the new law, he said there will be specific provisions for women and children as vulnerable groups. In America last April 2, 2008, the House passed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act and included language from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The bill will now go to conference committee to attempt to be reconciled with a similar Senate mental health parity bill.  On May 21, 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted, which contains similar genetic nondiscrimination language as included in H.R. 1424. On March 5, 2008, the House passed H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 by a vote of 268 to 148. And, in a strategic maneuver to advance the cause of genetic nondiscrimination, the House mental health parity bill also includes the language of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the same legislation that was passed almost unanimously by the House in April 2007 (H.R. 493). The parity provisions in the House bill would require significantly more changes to the design of employer health care plans than the Senate's mental health parity legislation, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 (S. 558), passed in September 2007 by unanimous consent. The Senate bill was the result of considerable negotiation among a variety of stakeholders and has the support of business, insurers, and most mental health advocates. [|**http://www.hewittassociates.com**]/legislative_updates
 * Junalyn Camacho **
 * References:**
 * [] **