Funding issues always lead the way: the public sector worries about planning and allocating the budget. However, I am not at all convinced that the number of funds for mental health is negligible. In addition, I am sure that the number of suicides is decreasing because improved diagnostic processes and new treatment regimens allow quicker resolution of problems. The magnitude of the budget is quite large, and the example of California demonstrates how stability can be maintained concerning leading mental health problems. I agree that such supplemental funding systems are helpful, but one wonders if California’s scheme closes the holes. The state’s investment in mental health remains inadequate from a human rights perspective. Mahomed believes the policy is directed toward a point-by-point response without emphasizing community wellness (2020). I cannot accept that viral platforms will not benefit or increase spending disproportionately to need.
The increasing personnel and budget costs of virtual platforms can be troubling. I think these costs are justified because virtual platforms greatly simplify the processes, and the level of outreach is greater. Society has a better idea of what an emergency is and treats its condition more thoroughly with the rise of monkeypox. Gender-based violence has always been an issue, and I think interest and funding are justified by many other factors, not just the pandemic. According to Mahomed, the funding gap will be filled if the public sector reconsiders its attitude toward policy at the domestic level (2020). It means directing funds by assessing practical outcomes rather than theoretical shortcomings: patient numbers, mortality, and morbidity statistics. Theorizing is not enough to manage the budget, so the nation must take responsibility for justifying financial needs.
Reference
Mahomed F. (2020). Addressing the problem of severe underinvestment in mental health and well-being from a human rights perspective. Health and human rights, 22(1), 35–49.