Please see below AIH's submission in response to the government's invitation for evidence to inform its ten year mental health strategy. I regret I did not have time to consult people: the submission was made six hours before the midnight deadline on 10 July.

At this stage, the response is simply a "hook" for further discussions within AIH and beyond. It is clear that more work is needed: this process has highlighted how difficult it is for Innate Health practitioners to influence policy without i) a clear definition of "innate health" and ii) a functioning Association.

Summary of AIH response to consultation on Mental health:

Question

Response

We are piloting 6 community-based mental health centres across England to understand how services can better work together at a local level to improve people's outcomes. We would like to hear practical insights that support wider transformation of mental health care in communities.

We welcome practical examples and evidence on how mental health services can work more effectively across:

· the wider NHS, including new neighbourhood health centres

· services to support people with co-occurring mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions

· different sectors, including education, employers, local authorities and the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector

How can mental health services work more effectively across these areas? (Optional)

Please provide examples of cross-sector pathways in practice.

The NHS has made many attempts to work with other sectors. But the NHS’s power structures and culture are hard wired against partnership. There is a strong belief that the NHS has all the answers, must retain full control, must distrust all partners, and pay them at punitive rates. This was demonstrated by the launch of social prescribing where positive words about partnership failed to deliver:

· the national PCN contract was very poorly worded

· Locally, the contract was interpreted by many PCNs to mean they did not need to contribute to the full costs of Link Workers and many local charities found they were expected to pay for some or all of recruitment costs, sick pay, maternity pay, holiday pay, training costs, computer costs, management costs etc.

Some PCNs argued charities should be subsidising NHS services.

Most local charities found the contracts unworkable and PCNs were pleased to employ staff directly - ending partnerships and focusing power within the NHS.

When local ICBs say they will only “pay by results”, this is another self-defeating strategy that imposes pressures and restrictions on partners that the NHS would never tolerate for itself or its staff.

If the NHS is serious about change, its entire culture needs to embrace proper partnership.

We welcome views or evidence on what further support, in addition to NHS services, should be provided for people with severe and enduring mental illness to:

· help them stay well

· maintain participation in education, work and community life

· avoid crisis and/or hospital admission

· reduce length of stay in inpatient units

What further support should be provided for people with severe and enduring mental illness?

Existing services are often too ready to pathologise behaviour and provide a clinical diagnosis and label that becomes part of someone’s identity and lifestyle. We would welcome a clearer focus on:

· building stronger communities

· supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives

What are the main barriers to continuity of care across transitions between hospital and community services, and between different levels of care, including child to adult services?

Please provide examples from either side of the transition and outline how these barriers could be effectively addressed.

Too many transitions are fractured as different parts of the NHS lose sight of individual human beings, and instead focus on protecting their own systems and shifting problems, risks and costs elsewhere (within another branch of the NHS or out in the community).

For example: hospital pharmacies can delay discharges for hours (and even overnight) as they follow their own priorities and choose not to provide urgent medication to patients awaiting discharge. This serves no-one but the pharmacy staff and illustrates the NHS’s deeply rooted problems.

The failure of mental health services are well documented elsewhere - particularly the transition from younger people’s services to adult services.

Within the voluntary and private sectors, there are many possible and affordable solutions to support people through transitions - but the NHS too often spends budgets on its own services and does not train or empower staff to buy in cheaper community-based solutions.

It's important that children and adults can benefit from the opportunities that digital technology can offer to boost mental health and wellbeing. However, this must be balanced with safety and protection from risks to mental health.

We understand that many people would like:

· more personalised, tailored mental health support available digitally

· digital tools to be neuroinclusive (accessible and effective for people with neurodevelopmental conditions)

A 2025 report from Mental Health UK stated that people are also increasingly turning to AI chatbots for mental health advice.

We welcome evidence and innovative examples of how digital and AI tools can be safely used for adults and children to:

· improve mental health and wider societal outcomes

· support access to effective mental health support

· complement relational care

What evidence and innovative examples are there of digital and AI tools being used to achieve these outcomes?

No answer at this time

How can data be used more innovatively to improve mental health and wider societal outcomes?

No answer at this time, but please see https://innatehealthresearch.org/.

The incidence and severity of mental health conditions has risen in recent decades, with young adults in particular now reporting substantially poorer mental health. Data from NHS England's 'Survey of mental health and wellbeing, England 2023 to 2024' stated that 25.8% of young people are estimated to have a common mental health condition, up from 17.5% in 2007.

Many of the solutions to mental health problems involve education, employment, housing and participation in community life. Therefore, if prevention is to be effective, we need to think beyond the realms of clinical care and across the life course.

We are especially interested in how we can identify distress earlier and support people to maintain participation in education and work. Preventative approaches include:

· primary prevention - stopping mental health problems before they start

· secondary prevention - supporting those at higher risk of experiencing mental health problems

· tertiary prevention - helping people living with mental health problems to stay well

We encourage examples of good practice within and beyond the health system, including in work and education settings where people with a co-occurring mental health and neurodevelopmental condition may particularly benefit.

Which preventative approaches have the strongest evidence for reducing incidence or severity of mental health problems and promoting good mental health?

The current “mental health crisis” has been driven by many different factors: generational, technical, social, cultural, educational.

Our experience has been that children, young people and adults are encouraged to perceive flaws in themselves, and are then incentivised to pathologise these perceptions. There is no systematic effort through childhood and beyond, to teach people that emotions are natural and healthy, and that thoughts are transitory and controllable.

Please see: https://innatehealthresearch.org/

Which preventative approaches have the strongest evidence for reducing the numbers of lives lost to suicide?

No answer at this stage

How can services better support the 'missing middle' - those with sustained needs (that affect their participation in community life, for example, in education or work) who may not meet the criteria for NHS mental health services?

Too many resources focus on “treating” people or symptoms, or making people wait for professional services or clinical support. Our experience is that most people see considerable improvements if they understand that emotions are natural and healthy, and that thoughts are transitory and controllable.

Too often, we hear that services are hindered by administrative barriers that prevent innovative, integrated and person-centred care. We are interested in the underlying enablers of good practice around the country, and the role national government can play in creating the conditions for reformed models of mental health support.

We are particularly interested to understand how access can be improved, for example through therapeutic support for certain groups such as women and girls subject to violence and/or child sexual abuse.

What commissioning, funding and oversight or accountability arrangements (nationally and locally) best support safe and integrated mental

health services that improve outcomes across mental health, participation in work, education and community life, and social functioning?

Existing NHS systems for commissioning, innovation, and support are failing the NHS and patients. The focus on regulation and safety too often limits innovation and protects failing services.

We suggest the creation of an Innovation Unit whose sole responsibility will be to seek out and test new solutions and treatments outside the NHS.

Blog