Accessibility and responsiveness of Better Access treatment services: Insights from the use of linked administrative data in the evaluation of Better Access.

objectiveThis study was conducted as part of an evaluation of the Better Access initiative. It examined (1) pathways into Better Access treatment; (2) the proportion of Better Access treatment users who are 'new'; (3) patterns of use and non-use of Better Access treatment services in relation to need; and (4) socioeconomic differences in Better Access treatment service use.

methodsWe used linked administrative and survey data available through the Person-Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA). More specifically, we used Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) data, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data, 2016 Census data, and data from the 2017/18 National Health Survey.

resultsAbout two-thirds of individuals who have had a mental health treatment plan prepared for them receive Better Access treatment services (albeit often after a considerable wait), but one-third do not. Although Better Access is reaching those with high levels of need, access is not equitable. It is harder for new users to access the programme than it was previously, as the number of continuing users and the number of treatment sessions provided to them have increased. People on low incomes are less likely to receive psychological treatment through Better Access (and more likely to be prescribed antidepressant or anxiolytic medication), and if they do receive Better Access services, they typically wait longer than their high-income counterparts to see a provider.

conclusionBetter Access appears to be responsive to need, but there are equity issues regarding its accessibility. These equity issues should be addressed as Better Access continues.