In this paper, detailed discussions of mental health disorders have been conducted because it is one of the global health issues affecting many people globally. Mental health is a comprehensive statement describing an individual’s cognitive, behavioral, and emotional well-being. According to the World Health Organization, mental health surpasses the absence of mental disorders; it needs to look onto happiness and overall well-being. Mental health disorders are brought about by many factors, including daily life actions and tendencies. It is mostly due to a lack of balance between an individual’s life’s social, economic, and biological spheres (“Mental Health Plans or Strategies for Nationally Defined Priority Population Groups,” 2021). Mental health disorders encompass various anxiety-related disorders, mood-related disorders, and schizophrenia-related disorders.
Due to mental health disorders’ effect, countries and the international are on the front-line to fight against the menace. The two have collaborated majorly on preventing mental health disorders from affecting the unaffected and helping the affected patients recover from the disorders. This has been achieved through creating mental health awareness and enacting legislative laws to help in fighting against mental health disorders. The laws are put into practice through policies.
Mental Health Policies
A mental health policy is an official declaration by the government or a recognized body that provides the direction on combating mental health disorders. It establishes a broader model for other institutions by defining a vision, mission, values, principles, and overall goals. Mental policies have proved important as they control the fight against the disorders 3 with a common ground. A governmental mental health policy constitutes financing, coordination, research, medicine procurement and distribution, human resources, and training.
CARA
In 2016, The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted by the US Congress and signed by president then, Barrack Obama. The policy was mainly aimed at preventing substance-use disorders and opioid use by treating and preventing mental health disorders. The following are the ethical resource allocation considerations used when addressing the issue; Inclusion, This means that more parties should be included in the decision-making. The needy institutions are also considered first and efficiently to cover the value for all the resources allocated. Nevertheless, the quality of the services as told by the recipients and the policy’s mission should be achieved and put into considerations.
Justification of The Policy’s Resource Allocation
The CARA policy is backed with an authorization of $181 million to programs and missions aimed at the prevention of mental health disorders by treating substance use. The policy statute authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to allocate $200 per year to institutions and programs. The institutions and programs that qualify for the allocations are; opioid treatment programs, federally qualified health centers, and Practitioners allowed administering a treatment with buprenorphine.
The policy specifies how the institutions and the programs can use the grants. The beneficiaries of the grants are supposed to increase the access to ganaxolone to substance users. The beneficiaries are also mandated with the role of training medical practitioners in administering ganaxolone and the creation of awareness of mental health. The policy authorizes the secretary to award grants to states with a higher rate of substances and drugs as this indicates the state of mental health (Fadgen, 2020). Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services secretary can award additional grants to states, organizations, and programs to fund opioid abuse response initiatives.
Outcomes of the Policy Allocations
The outcomes of the policy allocations are as follows; increased access to care for mental health patients and substance-abusing individuals and an increase in the quality of services offered to the patients. Moreover, there will be a reduced number of cases of mental health patients due to increased awareness and, affordable healthcare system concerning mental healthcare. There is also an increased collaboration of government institutions and private organizations on combating mental health disorders and substance abuse.
Trade-offs Made While Awarding the Grants
The policy requires that the Department of Health and Human Services secretary awards grants to a certain institution, programs, and individuals. Following are some of the ones that qualify for the grants: local governments, substance abuse agencies, non-profit organizations in areas with high rates of substance areas, and constitutionally qualified institutions. Nevertheless, state agencies should collaborate with the public to fight against substance abuse and mental health disorders. The secretary is vested with screening the grant applicants for the institutions and programs that does not qualify to be grants.
The policy requires that any institution, program, or individual that legally qualifies for the grant is awarded. The policy applies fairness in resource allocation. Despite applying compromises where required, the policy employs an awarding system that is inclusive and fair. This is seen because the policy considers government and non-governmental institutions and programs. The policy mainly aims to achieve its goals; therefore, it does not discriminate in its resource allocation.
Comparison with an Ethical Resource Allocation Framework
Compared to an ethical resource allocation framework, the policy’s resource allocation system worked right. It performed as required, but not to the optimal level to that of the policies potential. An ethical framework would exhaust the policy’s resources as it considers the mission, quality, efficiency, need, and the process associated with the allocation system. Therefore, the outcomes are supposed to be beyond or close to the optimal level.
Outcomes of the Policy from an Ethical Resource Allocation Framework
An ethical framework for the policy’s resource allocation would have the following outcomes. More parties would have been involved in the decision-making on the institution and programs that would get the grants. It translates to inclusion and the consideration of need, which means states and institutions that are more affected by mental health and substance abuse should receive those grants first. This would have increased the fast response to mental health disorders and efficiency; the value for money in resource allocation would increase the number of lives and patients that the policy touches (“Mental Health Plans or Strategies for Nationally Defined Priority Population Groups,” 2021). More people would receive care and attention, more states and organizations would be awarded grants. The ethical framework also has quality consideration, meaning that the policy would allocate the resources depending on the response from the patients and the recovering patients.
Trade-offs in Ethical Resource Allocation
The following are the trade-offs in ethical resource allocation: firstly, trust, an institution can be needier but may not even use the allocated resources as required. Moreover, equality is also an important element for ethical resource allocation to avoid focusing more on the needy institution, leaving out the other institution hence creating an inequality in the resource allocation. Accountability is also essential since not all organizations can account for utilizing their allocated resources. Fairness; the ethical resource allocation process will be deemed unfair and unjust if there considerations that are not fair or consistence with terms of all institutions and programs.
References
Fadgen, T. P. (2020). What Constitutes a Mental Health Policy?Mental Health Public Policy in Global Context, 25-49.
Mental health plans or strategies for nationally defined priority population groups. (2021). In OECD Health Policy Studies.
Thompson, C. A. (2017). Bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act becomes law. In American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy (Vol. 74, Issues 2, pp. 8-10).