Analysis of Policy, Power, and Politics in Australian Health Care

This essay delves into the complexities of health policymaking, particularly within the Australian context, using the Australian Policy Cycle framework. It examines the National Mental Health Policy 2008, exploring the influence of politics, power dynamics, ethical dilemmas, and legal considerations on policy development and implementation. The analysis includes an overview of mental health issues in Australia, the policy's objectives, and its impact on the community, especially vulnerable populations. The essay highlights the significance of addressing stigmas associated with mental illness and ensuring the rights of those affected, aligning with the policy's goals of promoting wellbeing and community integration. It references various research and reports to support its arguments, offering a comprehensive understanding of the policy's strengths, challenges, and overall effectiveness. Furthermore, the essay emphasizes the importance of considering diverse perspectives and stakeholder involvement in creating health policies that effectively serve the public's best interests. The essay also discusses the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018.

Running head: POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Introduction
Policymaking is the process of formulating policies that are required for a systematic
framework in politics, social or cultural issues. Usually, it is made for the benefit of the
public and their welfare. In the same aspect, the Australian government has made several
policies for the wellbeing of their people from every stratum. The Australian Policy Cycle by
Bridgman and Davis is a process of policymaking that has been designed to effectively
formulate a policy. It includes the stages of recognising the issues, analysis of policy,
assessment of policy instruments, consultation, synchronisation of decision, application, and
evaluation (Althaus, Bridgman & Davis, 2013).
The National Mental Health Policy 2008 is made for the people who are suffering
from mental health as it enables recovery, helps in preventing and diagnosing mental illness
in the initial stages. It also helps in accessing healthcare facilities and treatment for people
who are mentally ill and require medical assistance that includes supporting them to be a part
of the community as any other individual. The major aim of this policy is to promote the
welfare and wellbeing of people suffering from mental health who are a part of the Australian
Community and checking the cause of mental illnesses (Hughes et al., 2015). The necessity
to reduce the effect of mental illness in the society should be followed by working upon the
stigmas attached to it and most importantly sustaining the rights of the people who are
affected by mental health that will help them in participating in the usual activities of the
community.
Certain factors influence the process of health policymaking in a system such as
politics, power, ethical and legal dilemmas, and sometimes the impact of policies are negative
on the disadvantaged groups in the aspect of social and health care. Different processes that
need to be considered while making a healthcare policy influence the analytical framework in

2
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
the policy-making. The biases of political parties do affect the wellbeing of vulnerable
populations as it is shown in the policies made for them. However, the National Mental
Health Policy 2008 is developed for the prosperity of every population, specifically for the
low and middle-income groups (Cairney & Oliver, 2017). The relation between politics and
power is undeniable, which makes it a constructive as well as a destructive combination for
the process of policymaking. People in politics with power have the responsibility to make
aged care policies and healthcare policies. The negative impact of power in politics shows in
the construction of health policies from the construction to the implementation. As people
with different backgrounds and mentalities have their own viewpoints regarding the
wellbeing of the aged care who have mental health issues. People who are mentally ill need
more attention as their requirement with time increases due to their incapability, so they need
assistance and care through the help of policies and legislations. The ethical dilemmas and
legal dilemmas become an obstruction when the process of policymaking takes place. There
are several policies for age care such as The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act
2018 is done for the welfare of the old age people (Baldwin, Chenoweth & dela Rama, 2015).
These aged care policies are required in healthcare as well as domestic settings because they
usually do not have people to take care of them. The legal and ethical dilemmas are related to
the aspect of policymaking as these influences the process. The Australian Policy Cycle is a
model for effective policymaking, as it looks at all the aspects and priorities necessary for
making policies. The ethical concerns are to be considered so that it does not affect the
people negatively from the point of view of the government (Smith & Herriot, 2017). The
choice of policy to be investigated in National Mental Health Policy 2008 and the reason for
choosing this is because it focuses on the wellbeing of the mentally affected people that need
care and support from others including the health professionals. It gives more privileges to
the mentally ill, including human rights and rights as a citizen of the country. People with

3
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
mental disability should be treated in the same way people with normal capabilities are
treated. As they are also part of the community and they have the right to feel comfortable in
the usual activities just like others (Brophy et al., 2014). Most importantly, they should not be
discriminated because of their disability as it can make them feel more negative about their
issues, which is demotivating. This policy focuses on these aspects, so it makes it a major
reason for choosing this policy as it matches my ideology.
The thesis statement for this paper is using the Australian Policy Cycle framework for
the construction of health and aged care policies and the relations of politic, power, ethical
and legal dilemmas in construction of these policies focusing on the National Mental Health
Policy 2008. This will be the focus of this paper, which will be explained through evidence-
based literature about the recent happenings in the government related to policymaking. The
policy discussed will be National Mental Health Policy 2008, which is directed towards the
people who are affected by mental health illness. Factors influence the process of
policymaking as it plays a major role in the working of a system in which a society has to be
maintained in all the aspects (Sinclair et al., 2019).
Analysis of Policy
Varied types of mental illness in Australia occur over the period that includes anxiety,
depression, substance use and affective disorder. According to the report, the most prevalent
disorder is anxiety, which contributes to 14.4% of the population among the age group of 16
to 85 years on an annual basis (Aihw.gov.au, 2020). It was reported that the rate is expected
to double in successive years because of various factors. The concern is worsening over time
and it is critical to address the issue from a legislative perspective as general strategies were
found to be ineffective in the present context. The vision of the National Mental Health
Policy 2008 was intended to improve the scenario of mental health in the country by

4
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
recovering, early identification and effective admission to appropriate treatment and support
from community (Health.gov.au, 2020). The development of strategies and policies with
respect to mental health is stated to be vital for addressing the public health issue. The public
policy is responsible for having an impact on human lives, especially on people that are not
able to take their own decision. According to Jann and Wegrich (2017), the policy cycle is
used for describing the ways by which, an issue can be developed by initiating the concept,
application of implementation phases, evaluation and framing of an outline. The policy was
established based on mental health offer services and amenities that uphold the status of
mental health and well-being and thus, the policymaker needs to evaluate and make a
decision that was intended to offer greater good for people. The policy does not only focus on
the target population; however, but it also highlights the well-being of the entire society. The
practical experience was applied in developing the National Mental Health Policy 2008 that
include a comprehension coordination of collaborating efforts various stakeholders such as
policymaker, advocates, community and the general public for assessing the issue and
developing a program. A policy is a sum total of multiple processes and products that are
envisioned to support the society and curbing the issue affecting the public (Althaus,
Bridgman & Davis, 2017). Therefore, valuable judgement needs to be made that judges the
entire scenario from all the perspective. Bardach and Patashnik (2019) opined that the
development of policy is not a single step but a continuous and cyclic process that is not same
in each of the policy development process. The most applicable concept of policy
development is to identify the issue, which is posing a threat to the society and is increasing
its impact over time and finally, offering a solution in the form of a program, strategy or
policy. This involves the assessing of issue, set goals and objectives, identification of
parameters of the decision, pointing the available alternatives and suggesting the best
solution. Each of the steps is critically important for the development of the National Mental

5
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Health Policy 2008 as most of the Australian were found to be affected on a direct or indirect
basis by the influence of mental illness at one point of time. It is a widespread phenomenon
that is experienced by 3% of the population who are severely affected and the percentage has
arisen to 45%, which is a drastic change (Bentley et al., 2016). The impact is found to be
profound in nature and affects not only the individual suffering from it but families,
caregivers and the community as a whole. Prior to this, mental health was identified to be an
enormous issue in the country; however; no policy was adopted to address the issue. The
second steps involve gathering of data on a country basis that involves treating the graveness
of the problem and the need for developing the policy was identified. Mental health is stated
to be continuum as the person suffering from it may fluctuate from being unwell to being
well (Safety.uwa.edu.au, 2016). Various issues are related to it because misconceptions and
misunderstanding are part of it and there was no assistance to understand the language and
terminology associated with it. Moreover, the services and facilities were not properly
maintained and it affected the well-being of such people. This indicates that the government
needs to look into the issue and propose a solution that would help in establishing a policy.
The following step is an assessment of policy instruments required for effective development
of policy.
According to Dill (2018), the consideration included a number of options for
effectively address the issue such as new legislation, awareness program or any actions
undertaken by the government to have an insight of the issue and reflects with the use of the
best choice of solution. However, development of a policy is not a process that can be
commenced in a single day because it requires the assessment of various aspects and
discussion at various levels that involve consultation for testifying the solution from all
possible perception. Casey et al. (2019) opined that this step occurs both internally and
externally that require alliance and cooperation of various groups of stakeholders and

6
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
agencies that would help in the funding of the program and setting a background for it. The
major authority resides on the executive government or the Cabinet minister who is
responsible for making such a decision that can be applied and implemented on a country
basis. According to the policy, the National Mental Health Policy involves an obligation by
the ministers of health and other ministers that are liable for improvement of the mental
health system in Australia on a continual basis (Grace et al., 2017).
As per the finding of Fernandes et al. (2020), the policy has developed for enhancing
the mental health system by early detection of the illness and offering recovery strategies by
providing access to proper treatment and aid from the community. From the opinion of Wood
et al. (2018), it was found that one of the detrimental aspects that are associated with mental
health is a stigma that comprises of discriminatory behaviour from the society that affects the
process of detection and treatment. Thus, it was considered to be an important aspect that
needs to be addressed within the policy for offering an appropriate course of action to achieve
its objectives. The National Mental Health Policy is a part of the National Mental Health
Strategy that was agreed in 1992 and it incorporated the First National Mental Health Plan,
funding agreements from states, Commonwealth and the territories and the Mental Health
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Coombs et al., 2017). Therefore, it can be seen that
the government, which made Australia a ground breaker in the development of mental health
policy and service, made a combined and joint effort. From the study conducted by Grenyer
et al. (2017), it was observed that mental illness is a National Health Priorities, which is
related to conditions and behaviour that impedes the social capability and functioning of
conducting the daily activities in life. As per the report, it was stated that there were 5715
registered deaths due to Mental Health Disorder (F00-F99) that demonstrated about 4.1% of
the deaths in Australia was due to this disorder in 2007. The incidence of mental health
disorder is stated to be an underlying cause that had increased in a dramatically manner from

7
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
1997 to 2007 (Abs.gov.au, 2020). According to the report of World Health Organisation,
there are particular population in Australia that are found to have a high risk of acquiring
mental disorder due to vulnerability and exposure to hostile conditions in term of social,
environmental and economic aspect as well as gender-related factors. The weakness is
conferred before birth and these people had to carry the burden through their entire life.
Collins et al. (2017) opined that social inequalities are stated to increase the risk of mental
health disorder and the linking of social status and mental illness was found to be focused on
the frequency, level and duration of exposure to stress and anxiety. Even though there is
convincing evidence that indicates that negative effect of social, personal and economic
facets on mental disorders as well as the benefits earned by implementing the interventions,
still appropriate attention was not given. Barry (2019) opined that the global architecture of
mental illness is poorly established and do not have the proper financial instrument to support
the interventional strategies on a national level. The National Mental Health Strategy had
focused on reinforcing the health workforce that includes training and development of mental
healthcare professionals such as psychiatric nurses and psychiatrists along with general
healthcare staffs and community staffs to offer access to resources and services for mental
health treatment (Baum, 2016). Still, there are no organised or methodical efforts by the
donor community for addressing the restraints in the health system.
From the analysis of all issues, it conferred the importance of the policy and its
implication in the mental health system in Australia. From the existing knowledge related to
mental health strategy, implementation of structural changes was imposed on delivery on
mental health services and planning of a broader approach to have a focused approach on
collaborative with different sectors, promotion, prevention and application of early
interventional activity by stressing on the role of clients and carers (Nuša et al., 2018). In
addition, the workforce issues were given importance in case of research, sustainability and

8
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
innovation. The previous plans were linked with funds obtained through the Australian
Health Care Agreement and the policymakers evaluated each. Therefore, the policy was
nationally promoted for safety priority and a development plan for the National Standards for
Mental Health Services and Practice Standards for the Workforce (Mugisha et al., 2018).
Conclusion
From the evaluation and assessing of the development of National Mental Health
Policy 2008, it had specifically recognised the need of national reform in the country and the
importance of creating the policy that supports a connected and seamless care system for
focused and regaining health-oriented approach for the consumers. This helps the people to
engage in the community as well as participate in the recovery process. This policy has been
able to convey a array of sectors that affects the mental health to person, family and
community that involves health, housing, aged care, welfare, education, justice and
indigenous community. As per the thesis statement, the evaluation of the policy allowed in
gaining an in-depth knowledge of the particular policy, the National Mental Health Policy
that included the concepts of the link between politics and power that affects the creation of
policy and ethical and legal dilemmas as well as issues in formulating and enacting it. The
collaboration of different sectors is found to play a vital role in elevation the condition of
mental health of the general people in Australia, thus, allowing in early intervention and
prevention. This had led to gaining of a number of advantages from the National Mental
Health Strategy as it offers superior access to a various kinds of services, enriched the quality
of care and service delivery and offered vigorous legislation that covered the entire issue.
In the present context, it can be stated that a more diverse and significant approach
that includes different areas of interest in term of clinical practice and community help with
support from the different governmental sector is required that would effective controlling the

9
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
issue and maximise the mental health outcome among the Australian irrespective of any
discrimination. Therefore, the process used for developing the policy was found to be
effective as the effort of government is focused to attain social inclusion for the community.
This was especially true in case of those groups that are at risk of social inclusion such as
homeless people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and disadvantages people. The aim
of the policy is to recognise the fundamental aspect of the good mental health of individuals,
families as well as society. More importantly, the issues of mental health are responsible for
increasing the level of ill health and dropping the quality of life for those who are suffering as
well as the associated people. This have societal, economic and environmental impact. The
policy has critically addressed the issue by reducing the proportion of Australia with mental
illness and reducing the risk of suicide. This involves access to the right care at the right time
in a coordinated manner. One of the critical aspects that was taken into consideration while
formulating the particular policy was the role of supervision. In most of the legislation, the
client is given all the attention with understanding the critical role carers that affect the
provision of care. The policy analysis cycle monitors and evaluates the policy from across the
sectors that allow in achieving positive outcomes and high-quality results with respect to
mental healthcare problems. Moreover, rigorous evaluation and studies are continually done
for generating knowledge related to the issue that will help in reducing the impact. There is
the presence of a number of issues related to National Health Priorities, determinant of health
and others have an impact on the implementation of the policy, which, need to be addressed.

10
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
References
Abs.gov.au. (2020). NATIONAL HEALTH PRIORITY AREAS Retrieved 20 February 2020,
from
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/5317BAD6B8EEE19ACA25757
C001EED30?opendocument
Aihw.gov.au (2020). Summary of Mental health services in Australia - Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare. Retrieved 20 February 2020, from
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-services-in-
australia/report-contents/summary-of-mental-health-services-in-australia
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2017). The Australian Policy Handbook: A practical
guide to the policy making process. 6th Edition. Allen & Unwin.
Baldwin, R., Chenoweth, L., & dela Rama, M. (2015). Residential aged care policy in
Australia–are we learning from evidence?. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 74(2), 128-141.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2019). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold
path to more effective problem solving. CQ press.
Barry, M. M. (2019). Reframing the Challenge of Promoting Population Mental Health.
In Implementing Mental Health Promotion (pp. 35-57). Springer, Cham.
Baum, F. (2016). The new public health (No. Ed. 4). Oxford University Press.
Bentley, R. J., Pevalin, D., Baker, E., Mason, K., Reeves, A., & Beer, A. (2016). Housing
affordability, tenure and mental health in Australia and the United Kingdom: a
comparative panel analysis. Housing studies, 31(2), 208-222.

11
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Brophy, L., Hodges, C., Halloran, K., Grigg, M., & Swift, M. (2014). Impact of care
coordination on Australia’s mental health service delivery system. Australian Health
Review, 38(4), 396-400.
Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based
medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and
policy?. Health research policy and systems, 15(1), 35.
Casey, M., Rohde, D., Brady, A. M., Fealy, G., Hegarty, J., Kennedy, C., ... & O'Leary, D.
(2019). Developing a new health‐related policy analysis tool: An action research
cooperative inquiry approach. Journal of nursing management, 27(6), 1233-1241.
Collins, J., Ward, B. M., Snow, P., Kippen, S., & Judd, F. (2017). Compositional, contextual,
and collective community factors in mental health and well-being in Australian rural
communities. Qualitative health research, 27(5), 677-687.
Coombs, T., Burgess, P., Dickson, R., & McKay, R. (2017). Routine Outcome Measurement
and the Development of the Australian Mental Health Workforce: The First 25 Years
of Implementation Are the Hardest. In Workforce Development Theory and Practice
in the Mental Health Sector (pp. 302-316). IGI Global.
Dill, D. D. (2018). Can public policy promote academic quality? An assessment of policy
instruments for instruction and research. In Research Handbook on Quality,
Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fernandes, R. L., Miranda, F. A. N. D., Oliveira, K. K. D. D., Rangel, C. T., Costa, D. A. R.
D. S., & Moura, I. B. D. L. (2020). Knowledge of managers on the National Mental
Health Policy. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 73(1).

12
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Grace, F. C., Meurk, C. S., Head, B. W., Hall, W. D., Harris, M. G., & Whiteford, H. A.
(2017). An analysis of policy success and failure in formal evaluations of Australia’s
national mental health strategy (1992–2012). BMC health services research, 17(1),
374.
Grenyer, B. F., Ng, F. Y., Townsend, M. L., & Rao, S. (2017). Personality disorder: a mental
health priority area. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 51(9), 872-875.
Health.gov.au. (2020). National mental health policy 2008 Retrieved 20 February 2020, from
https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/B4A903FB48158B
AECA257BF0001D3AEA/$File/finpol08.pdf
Hughes, A., Gleeson, D., Legge, D., & Lin, V. (2015). Governance and policy capacity in
health development and implementation in Australia. Policy and Society, 34(3-4),
229-245.
Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2017). Theories of the policy cycle. In Handbook of public policy
analysis (pp. 69-88). Routledge.
Mugisha, J., Abdulmalik, J., Hanlon, C., Petersen, I., Lund, C., Upadhaya, N., ... & Gureje,
O. (2017). Health systems context (s) for integrating mental health into primary health
care in six Emerald countries: a situation analysis. International journal of mental
health systems, 11(1), 7.
Nuša, N. K. J., Anderluh, M. A., Švab, V. S., Zakotnik, J. M. Z., & Dernovšek, M. Z. D.
(2018). Centres for Mental Health: how we envisaged the future of community-based
services in National Mental Health Strategy. European Journal of Public
Health, 28(suppl_4), cky213-721.

13
POLICY POWER AND POLITICS IN HEALTH CARE
Safety.uwa.edu.au (2016). Common mental health issues : Safety, Health and Wellbeing :
The University of Western Australia.. Retrieved 20 February 2020, from
https://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/health-wellbeing/health/psychological/common-
mental-health-issues
Sinclair, C., Field, S., Blake, M., & Radoslovich, H. (2019). An examination of
organisational policies for healthcare and lifestyle decision‐making among Australian
aged care providers. Australasian journal on ageing, 38, 90-97.
Smith, J. A., & Herriot, M. (2017). Positioning health promotion as a policy priority in
Australia. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 28(1), 5-7.
Wood, L., Byrne, R., Enache, G., & Morrison, A. P. (2018). A brief cognitive therapy
intervention for internalised stigma in acute inpatients who experience psychosis: a
feasibility randomised controlled trial. Psychiatry research, 262, 303-310.