If I'm reading this right, it was spent on reactive treatment, which it turned out is nowhere near enough money to make a dent.
In the author's opinion, if we instead put money (even as little as $20M) into wellbeing focused prevention, it would save far more money and be far more effective. But the Labour government wasn't interested in proactive investment in wellbeing.
As someone who has been on projects that can cost $20M to decide whether to go to the pub, I am not convinced $20M actually gets you anything (and people tend to far underestimate how much things cost). However, I agree with the sentiment. Something about a gram of prevention is worth a KG of cure.