Investing in mental health: what should the funding change?

Fahad AlmalikMedical review: Tatmeen teamUpdated 30 October 20267 min read

Article contents

Funding is needed, and figures need context
What does “four dollars returned for every dollar” mean?
What should the budget buy?
Digital care needs real care behind the screen
At work, fund changes to conditions too
How can we monitor impact while protecting privacy?
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources and references
Writer and reviewer

A mental-health service can receive a larger budget while the person who needs it still cannot reach it. The appointment is weeks away, the cost is unclear, or nobody follows up after the visit. Good investment therefore starts with a practical question: which barrier will the funding remove, and how will we know it has been removed?

Money is essential, but its effect depends on what it funds: qualified people, accessible services, continuing care and protection of rights. This matters to policy-makers, providers and employers, as well as readers who want to understand what supporting mental health means beyond an awareness campaign.

Funding is needed, and figures need context

In September 2025, WHO presented findings from the Mental Health Atlas 2024. Median government spending on mental health was approximately 2% of health budgets globally. A median is the middle value in the reported data. This is not an estimate of Saudi Arabia's budget, and it cannot by itself establish the quality of a country's services. It illustrates a financing gap facing many systems¹, alongside workforce shortages and uneven access to care.

A local discussion needs local evidence. Who needs care but cannot obtain it? Where are waits longest? Which services can people continue using without cost becoming a barrier? Applying a global figure to one country or organization does not answer those questions.

What does “four dollars returned for every dollar” mean?

A frequently cited WHO estimate from 2016 suggested that expanding treatment for depression and anxiety could generate benefits in health and ability to work worth four dollars for each dollar invested. It was a modelling study covering 36 countries over 2016–2030², rather than a record of money returned to every project's accounts.

The estimate combines the value of improved health with work-related benefits. It does not mean that a particular organization will recover four times its spending in cash, or establish the value of a new app or programme. Before adopting a return estimate, ask which intervention and population it covers, which costs it counts and which assumptions drive the result. For example, this model assumed a 5% improvement⁶ in ability to work and productivity at work following treatment. That was an input to the calculation, not an improvement measured in every person or a promise for a new project.

Care also has a fundamental justification when its value cannot be expressed as productivity or money: a person's right to health and dignity. Treatment does not become less valuable because someone is not employed.

What should the budget buy?

WHO's community mental-health guidance supports services connected to people's lives³, choices and rights, and integrated with health and social care. These principles can become concrete questions when planning or reviewing funding:

Spending area	A question worth answering
Access	Are appointments suitable, costs understandable and alternative services available when the first option does not fit?
Workforce	Is there a qualified team with enough time for assessment and follow-up, and appropriate training and supervision?
Continuity	Who follows up referrals? How can someone move between services without starting again each time?
Rights and safety	How are choices explained, privacy protected and complaints handled? Who is responsible for resolving problems?
Evaluation	What will be measured before and after funding, beyond visit totals or app downloads?

For example, if many people do not complete a referral from primary care to a specialist service, the priority may be appointment coordination, follow-up and clear responsibilities. Another advertising campaign does not automatically repair that missing connection. The problem should determine the tool and budget.

Digital care needs real care behind the screen

Digital tools may broaden ways of accessing care and communicating. WHO's digital-health guidance⁴ nevertheless stresses that they do not replace a functioning health system. Benefits, harms, acceptability, feasibility and equity all belong in the decision.

Before funding remote care, the service should be able to explain:

Who provides care, and what are the limits of their qualifications and role?
What happens when someone needs an in-person examination or a different level of help?
Who can access their information, why, and what do they know about that before using the service?
What does the team do if the connection fails or the person cannot be reached?
What alternative is available to someone without reliable internet or a private place to talk?

These are questions about the service itself. User numbers describe the reach of a tool; they do not by themselves demonstrate better health or good care.

At work, fund changes to conditions too

Care teams' working conditions deserve attention too. A plan may include time for supervision and training, a confidential route to support, and workload reviews involving staff. “Take care of yourself” cannot be an organization's only response to a problem in how it organizes work.

How can we monitor impact while protecting privacy?

A review can start with aggregate indicators linked to the chosen problem: waiting times, completed referrals, continuity, service-user experience and complaints resolved. If health improvement is measured, explain the measure, the period, who the data include and who is missing. A simple comparison before and after a programme does not always establish that the programme alone caused the change.

Employers do not need employees' session details to understand whether a service is accessible and useful. Reports should avoid identifying individuals, particularly in small teams, and management reporting should be separated from private care.

When reviewing an investment plan, choose a specific barrier, name who is responsible for addressing it and connect funding to an observable change. The discussion can then focus on what people actually receive: an available appointment, a team able to follow up, understandable choices and care that respects their dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does good investment in mental health look like?

It starts with a practical question: which barrier will the funding remove, and how will we know it has been removed? Money is essential, but its effect depends on what it funds: qualified people, accessible services, continuing care and protection of rights. A service can receive a larger budget while the person who needs it still cannot reach it, because the appointment is weeks away, the cost is unclear or nobody follows up.

Does every dollar invested in mental health return four?

It is a WHO estimate from 2016: expanding treatment for depression and anxiety could generate benefits in health and ability to work worth four dollars for each dollar invested. It was a modelling study covering 36 countries over 2016–2030, not a record of money returned to every project's accounts. It does not mean a particular organization will recover four times its spending in cash, or establish the value of a new app or programme.

How much do governments spend on mental health?

According to the Mental Health Atlas 2024 findings that WHO presented in September 2025, median government spending on mental health was approximately 2% of health budgets globally. This is not an estimate of Saudi Arabia's budget, and it cannot by itself establish the quality of a country's services. It illustrates a financing gap facing many systems, alongside workforce shortages and uneven access to care.

Can digital tools replace mental health services?

Digital tools may broaden ways of accessing care and communicating, but they do not replace a functioning health system. Before funding remote care, the service should be able to explain who provides care, what happens when someone needs an in-person examination, who can access their information, and what alternative exists for someone without reliable internet. User numbers describe a tool's reach; they do not by themselves demonstrate better health or good care.

How can employers support their employees' mental health?

An employer funding counselling should also examine workload, violence or harassment and limited control over tasks. WHO recommends organizational action on workplace risks alongside manager training, support and appropriate accommodations for workers. Employers do not need employees' session details to understand whether a service is accessible and useful, and reports should avoid identifying individuals, particularly in small teams.

Writing and article review

Written byFahad Almalik

Content writer and researcher at Tatmeen, writing in Arabic and English about mental health and everyday life, from relationships and stress to work, habits, and family.

Medical reviewTatmeen team

Every Tatmeen article is reviewed by care providers licensed by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties, so what you read is accurate and trustworthy.

This article builds understanding and does not replace a licensed care provider.

In immediate danger?

If you or someone you know is in danger, call an ambulance on 997 or go to the nearest emergency department.

Emergency numbers