We Asked, You Said, We Did

We sought your feedback via the Consultation Hub followed by a stakeholder workshop about the proposed new format for Prescribed List billing codes.

Our initial proposal was a 5-digit ANNNN format.

You raised concerns that the ANNNN format did not allow for sponsor-specific prefixes.

You raised concerns about system changes and implementation timeframes.

You suggested alternative formats:

• a 6-digit format
• using the same format as Part B billing codes (AAANN)
• remapping billing codes
• reusing previously deleted billing codes
• using AANAN format

Other parameters or matters we all identified:

• preference to retain a sponsor-specific prefix
• the format must clearly distinguish between PL and MBS and ARTG codes
• the format must clearly distinguish between medical devices (Part A, C and D) and human tissue products (Part B)
• remapping would require substantial resources
• reusing billing codes would risk losing or mixing historical data between devices and/or sponsors

We reviewed all suggestions, feedback and parameters and decided on the following format:

AXNNN, with AX remaining as a sponsor-specific prefix.

This format addresses all risks and parameters.

There are over 80 previously deleted billing codes that have used this AXNNN format. We will ensure that these billing codes are not reused or reallocated by the Health Products Portal (our online application system for the PL) in the future.

***YOU CAN FIND A TEST XML FILE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN THE 'RELATED' SECTION BELOW***

Between June and July 2024, we sought your views on national standards for counsellors and psychotherapists. This included feedback on the experience, capabilities, and behaviours expected in these professions.

We received feedback from counsellors, psychotherapists, peak bodies, service providers, consumers, carers, and other interested parties.

From over 30 interviews and 315 written submissions, we heard:

• Broad support for mandatory national standards to ensure high-quality services.
• General support for including education and training, supervision, and CPD in the national standards.
• Strong interest in providing feedback on the draft national standards, once available.

We developed draft national standards based on your feedback and research.

A second round of consultation is now open to gather your views on the draft standards.

You can find a copy of the draft standards and information on how to get involved in consultation here.

We asked for views on after hours primary care policies and programs, including the need for primary care after hours services, the current state of after hours service provision and successful models of primary care after hours service provision. While the consultation was open to the public, we sought input in particular from primary care providers.

The Discussion Paper Allen + Clarke Consulting – After Hours Review evaluation report | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care provides further details on the consultation.

The online survey received a total of 457 responses, including:
• 253 from practice owners/managers and primary health practitioners
• 51 from Primary Health Networks
• 58 from peak bodies, colleges, or other organisations
• 95 from others, primarily members of the public.

42 written submissions were also received from organisations and individuals.
As part of the review, focus groups and interviews were also held with more than 34 key stakeholder organisations, and workshops with 61 healthcare consumers. We thank all stakeholders and consumers who provided input into the Review for contributing their time and insights.

We reviewed all submissions, alongside other consultation feedback and data. The Findings Report of the evaluation to support the review of primary care after hours programs and policy provides an analysis of all stakeholder input. The Findings Report will be made available on the Department of Health and Aged Care’s webpage A better after-hours system – Review of After-hours Primary Care Programs and Policy | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care

The Department will continue to address key concerns and issues while we consider options for improving the after hours primary care system. We will continue to keep stakeholders informed of the reform process and will provide opportunities for engagement wherever practical.

The Department of Health and Aged Care, in partnership with the Australian Digital Health Agency, sought feedback to inform implementation of two changes to improve sharing of pathology and diagnostic imaging reports to My Health Record:

• better access: introducing requirements for pathology and diagnostic imaging providers to share reports to My Health Record by default
• faster access: removing the 7-day delay so consumers can see most pathology and diagnostic imaging results as soon as they have been uploaded to My Health Record.

We received 416 submissions from a range of respondents including consumers and carers, healthcare providers and peak bodies.

Submissions have been published where respondents provided consent for this to occur.

We reviewed submissions and prepared a summary report of key themes and feedback. Feedback is informing implementation, noting we will be undertaking further consultation as implementation progresses.

We have also established a Clinical Reference Group to support implementation by providing strategic advice and clinical oversight.

The Intellectual Disability Capability Framework drafting group asked for feedback about the draft Intellectual Disability Health Capability Framework in an open consultation from 3 -27 October 2023. We asked for feedback about the overall draft framework and asked for specific feedback about the following areas of the draft framework document:

• learning outcomes
• implementation guidelines
• capacity assessment tools
• terms and language.

This was the second consultation for this project (the first open consultation asked for feedback about the core capabilities). 

Thirty-three submissions to the open consultation were received from a range of stakeholders including individuals, health services, peak bodies, education providers, First Nations organisations and groups representing and serving those with intellectual disabilities. A breakdown of responses is as follows:

• 9 responses from individuals/consumers
• 17 responses from organisations
• 7 responses from section/teams within an organisation

The results showed that overall, 91% of respondents agreed that the learning outcomes were appropriate, and 67% agreed that the learning outcomes were measurable. In relation to implementation guidelines, 58% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for accreditation authorities was appropriate, and 70% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for education providers was appropriate. 67% of respondents agreed that the assessment tools were useful, and 85% of respondents agreed that the language used in the framework was appropriate.

Free text comments identified areas for amendments or emphasis in the draft Framework. Main areas that were identified include:

• strengthening guidance around integrating intellectual disability into crowded curricula and accreditation standards.
• the need to provide students with the appropriate placements to prepare them to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability.
• disability awareness training for educators.
• the need to acknowledge self-regulating health professions within the framework.
• suggestions to simplify the capacity assessment tools.
• proposed changes to terminology and areas for emphasis in learning outcomes.

Feedback also identified areas that will be considered in the next phase of the project, including resource development, evaluation strategies and communities of practice. This feedback has been recorded and will be used in the next phase of the project.

All submissions were reviewed, and amendments have been made as appropriate. The following significant changes were made:

• strengthened guidance about how educational institutions and accreditation authorities can integrate intellectual disability into curricula and standards.  Flexible implementation options were provided and examples of ways that learning outcomes can be integrated into existing curricula were added.
• emphasised the need for appropriate placements to prepare students to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability and provided alternatives if no intellectual disability specific services.
• emphasised importance of disability awareness training for educators.
• acknowledged self-regulating health professions within the Framework.
• amended capacity assessment tools and made them modifiable, so they could be further revised to suit the needs of each organisation.
• updated terminology and glossary definitions as suggested. For example, diagnostic overshadowing was updated to a more contemporary definition.
• Added a new learning outcome to emphasise the need to limit diagnostic overshadowing. The new learning outcomes is: “Limit diagnostic overshadowing by evaluating when presentations are attributable to health and/or mental health concerns rather than intellectual disability”.

Next steps:

The next stage of the Intellectual Disability Health Curriculum Development Project, led by a team at UNSW Sydney, aims to curate and develop intellectual disability health resources to support the integration of the Framework into accreditation standards and health professional pre-registration education curricula. The project began in June 2023 and will run for two years, with resources released throughout this time. This phase involves significant consultation and co-design with people with intellectual disability, and consultation with key stakeholders including support networks of people with intellectual disability, accreditation authorities, and the higher education sector. The objectives of this next stage are to:

1. scope potential barriers and facilitators to implementation in accreditation standards and create a plan to support integration
2.  curate a list of existing foundational knowledge and teaching resources and provide guidance around their use
3.  identify and develop additional priority resources and tools to support education providers to implement the Framework. One such tool will support education providers to include people with intellectual disability and their support networks in the design and delivery of curriculum content.

We appreciate all the interest and expertise shared throughout the consultation phase and thank all stakeholders who prepared a submission.

We asked you for your experiences, views and perspectives of health practitioners working to full scope of practice in primary care.  

We received 686 online submissions from people representing a wide range of professions and roles in primary care.

The review analysts will now highlight the trends and key issues form the submissions. Together with the literature review, this will paint a comprehensive picture of the current state of scope of practice in primary care, to inform the next stages of the review.

We asked the Australian community and key stakeholders to provide their views on what they wanted to see in the new pandemic instrument and amended International Health Regulations (2005) to inform Australia's engagement in negotiations.

A total of 4,521 submissions were received from individuals and a range of stakeholder groups, including academic and research institutes; non-government and community organisations; peak bodies and unions; and private sector institutions. 

We have considered submissions received and identified key themes. A report containing a summary of the key themes and a Government response is available here. 

We asked you 25 questions about your views and input on the National Health and Climate Strategy consultation paper. The invitation for written submissions and an online survey were open to public response from 2 June to 24 July 2023. The department also held workshops and roundtables around Australia.

Over 300 stakeholders attended our workshops and roundtables and shared their views, concerns, and aspirations for the Strategy. The department received 270 submissions via the Consultation Hub. Participants included organisations and individuals from a diverse group of stakeholders including medical professionals, primary care, advocacy organisations, academia, industry, and medical societies and colleges. To read more about the consultation process please visit the Final Thematic Stakeholder Report. 

This consultation informed the development of the National Health and Climate Strategy, which was published on 3 December 2023 and is available for download here.

For your views on whether, and if so how, to reform the governance and administration of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC’s) Medical Research Endowment Account (MREA) to ensure the Australian community obtains the greatest benefit from this investment in health and medical research.

The Discussion Paper provides further details on the consultation.

We received 177 submissions from a broad, diverse and passionate range of stakeholders. There was a  prevailing view that the two funds should be brought together under a single managing structure/ agency, currently the NHMRC. However, stakeholders advised a staged, incremental approach should be taken to the reforms, with a focus on ensuring the benefits of the two funds are preserved and promoted.

We analysed and summarised your feedback in the Summary Report.

The Department and NHMRC are working together to address key concerns and issues while we consider options for implementation. This includes working together to better use existing advisory committees (e.g. MRFF will seek advice from NHMRC committees), developing and implementing policies together, and other efforts that better align the two funds without requiring formal governance reforms.

The government will continue to keep stakeholders informed of the reform process and will provide opportunities for engagement wherever practical.

For views from the Australian community on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas: Manufacturers and Importers Agreement (MAIF Agreement). This included views on the current scope of the MAIF agreement, whether the current processes related to the MAIF Agreement and Committee are appropriate, if alternate regulatory approaches need to be considered and any benefits, costs and limitations of changes to the agreement.   

A total of 524 individuals and organisations participated in stakeholder consultation, including consumers and members of the public, infant formula industry (MAIF Agreement signatories and non-signatories), State and Territory government representatives, health sector representatives, breastfeeding and public health advocates, and academics. The online survey received 443 responses. Consultation also included 28 focus groups and interviews led by Allen + Clarke, and analysis of 11 written submissions provided by interested parties. The responses were detailed and diverse. We thank all of the respondents for their time and feedback.

Of the 443 responses to the online survey, 408 respondents provided consent to publish their responses. However, all responses were included in the analysis undertaken by Allen + Clarke.

The Consultation Report provides an analysis of all stakeholder consultation.

A Consultation Report and the MAIF Review report will be made available on the Department of Health and Aged Care’s Marketing Infant Formula in Australia webpage. Submissions have now been published on Consultation Hub (where consent to publish was granted by the respondent).

The Department of Health and Aged Care (Department) asked for your views and input on the draft aim, outcomes and actions in the consultation draft Nurse Practitioner Workforce Plan (the Plan). The draft Plan was released for stakeholder feedback from 19 December 2022 to 10 February 2023.

Targeted meetings were also held during this time to seek feedback from stakeholder organisations. Yarning circles and a consumer focus group were also held to test the actions within the draft Plan to ensure they are realistic, implementable and well received by both First Nations peoples and consumers.

Feedback received during the consultation process is being used to refine and inform the final Plan.

In total, 215 submissions were received, comprising of 172 online survey responses, 25 written submissions via email, 15 targeted stakeholder meetings, 1 consumer focus group and 2 yarning circles.

The mix of responses from consumers, nurse practitioners, health professionals and organisations provided a comprehensive understanding of how the aim, outcomes and actions of the Plan were received. Feedback on improving the draft Plan was constructive with suggestions to refine language and review the action’s timeline. Whilst many responses were focused on the barriers to nurse practitioners providing care, the Department received useful suggestions for refining the draft Plan.

The Department undertook analysis of the online submissions (including survey and written responses) using the Citizen Space application in February 2023. The data from online and written submissions was further analysed simultaneously with stakeholder feedback from meetings, yarning circles and focus groups. This involved coding the qualitative responses for feedback on key themes and creation of analysis notes to further refine the consultation draft. 

Stakeholder feedback captured is being used to refine the Plan and ensure the actions address key nurse practitioner workforce challenges. Suggestions proposed during this round of consultation will be considered by the Nurse Practitioner Steering Committee and used to develop a final version of the Plan for approval by Government. 

The department asked for feedback about the core capabilities to support the Intellectual Disability Health Capability Framework (framework) in an open consultation from 22 November 2022 – 27 January 2023.  The proposed framework for consultation included the following capabilities:

• Intellectual Disability Awareness
• Communication
• Quality Evidence- Based Clinical Care
• Coordination and Collaboration
• Decision-Making and Consent
• Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice.

We asked whether people thought the framework and the core capabilities address the key areas for health students’ knowledge and practice. We also asked people to comment on the content and detail covered by each of the six capabilities.

Ninety-three submissions to the open consultation were received from a range of stakeholders including individuals, health services, peak bodies, education providers, and groups representing and serving those with intellectual disabilities. A breakdown of responses is as follows:

• 22 responses from individuals/consumers
• 37 responses from organisations
• 34 responses from section/teams within an organisation

The results showed that overall, 77% of respondents agreed that the capability areas capture the key capabilities. The level of agreement by specific capability area ranged from 63% (Intellectual Disability Awareness) to 74% (Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice). Submissions also proposed changes to terminology, and identified gaps in capabilities, areas where more emphasis was required, and clarification was needed. Feedback also identified potential learning outcomes and implementation ideas for the framework.

Feedback has been recorded and will be used to futher develop the framework. All submissions have been reviewed and amendments have been made to capabilities as appropriate. The following significant changes were made: 

The addition of two new capabilities 

• Appropriate assessment (Quality Evidence-Informed Health Care). Employ appropriate assessment procedures and tools to inform diagnosis of health conditions, with an awareness that modified diagnostic criteria and reasonable adjustments may be required for assessment of people with intellectual disability. 
• Safe and quality practices (Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice). Provide a safe health care environment for people with intellectual disability and apply knowledge of the risks that may be associated with accessing health care to inform safe service provision.  

Key wording changes 

• ‘Adapt communication’ will replace ‘person’s preferred language and communication style and adapted communication’ to clarify the description and emphasise adaptation of communication. 
• ‘Communicate to reassure’ will replace ‘communicate about safety’ to clarify the intent of the description, which is focused on communicating to provide a sense of control and comfort. 
• ‘Evidence-informed practice’ will replace ‘evidence-based practice’ to recognise other types of evidence, including lived experience.  
• ‘Partnership’ rather than ‘inclusion’ in care will be used to describe respectful involvement where both parties are equal participants in care with a minimised power differential. 
• ‘Where at all possible, non-restrictive techniques’ will replace ‘least restrictive’ to highlight that any restrictive practice is a last resort.​ 
• ‘Responsible prescribing’ will replace ‘over prescribing’ to include inappropriate prescribing, lack of prescribing, or prescribing older drugs when newer ones should be used.​ 
• ‘Collaborate with other professionals’ will replace ‘intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration’ to simplify the capability and be inclusive of community and other service networks and providers. 
• ‘Continuity in care during transitions’ will replace ‘transitions in care’ to include continuity in care and emphasise the importance of effective handovers and collaboration between health professionals. 

Following the open consultation process, a modified Delphi method will be conducted with key stakeholders to reach consensus on the core capabilities. A futher public consultation will be undertaken in September 2023 to seek feedback on the draft framework document.

We appreciate all the interest and expertise shared throughout the consultation phase and thank all stakeholders who prepared a submission.

The department asked for your views and input on the Review of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (the Review). The Review was released for written stakeholder feedback from 6 April 2022 to 17 June 2022.

18 submissions were received from a range of stakeholders including peak health bodies, advocacy organisations, First Nations health care services and state government organisations. The submissions were broadly supportive of the Review findings.

Where appropriate, feedback provided on the Review has been considered to inform Program activities and enhancements.

A summary of the Review’s Findings and Program Reform Actions is provided in the below table.

For your feedback on the goals, principles, and priority areas of the draft National Tobacco Strategy 2022-2030 (the Strategy). We appreciate the diverse perspectives, experiences and knowledge of all stakeholders and interested members of the community and their contribution to the final Strategy.

We received 515 submissions, from peak health bodies, businesses, academics, clinicians and members of the public. You said that reducing the rates of tobacco use in Australia is important, and the Strategy is key to informing how this is achieved. The Strategy must set the direction for future tobacco control activities in Australia.

All submissions are now available on the consultation page.

Reviewed and analysed the feedback to strengthen the Strategy. The new National Tobacco Strategy is expected to be finalised in 2023 pending endorsement from Commonwealth, state and territory governments.

For your views and input on the draft domains and capabilities in the draft National Rural and Remote Nurse Generalist Framework (the Framework), that describe the unique context of practice and core capabilities for remote area nursing practice, and rural nursing practice.

In 157 submissions, from peak health bodies, organisations, businesses and clinicians, that this Framework is significant for rural and remote area nursing, health services and the health of communities.  There were a number of expert recommendations across various submissions, together with various commendations on the draft presented. 

Review and analyse the feedback, which has strengthened the Framework.  A report on the public consultation feedback is available on the consultation page.  We appreciate the great insight and expertise shared with the Framework Steering Committee during this public consultation phase and anticipate the final Framework will be released in late 2022.

Between November 2021 and March 2022, the Department of Health and Aged Care conducted initial targeted consultations with the medicines sector about the potential to introduce a National Medicines Traceability Framework in Australia.

This initial round of consultation sought to:

• help shape the framework policy
• determine feasible framework designs and implementation approaches
• gauge industry’s appetite and readiness to operation within a framework
• identify the expected impacts and benefits a framework may have on businesses.

We received 42 submissions from a cross section of stakeholders, including medicines sponsors, wholesalers, peak bodies (including consumer and clinical representatives), pharmacies, and state and territory organisations.

We have reviewed all submissions and the results are now available in the NMTF - Analysis of Consultation Survey Responses. Note, the questions that relate to each section of analysis are summarised in the report at the end of each page.

The results show:

• the type of NMTF will determine the benefits that can be realised, for example, while 79 per cent of respondents proposed that an NMTF could provide faster and more accurate product recalls, this is likely to refer to a full track and trace model, rather than ‘point of dispense’ model
• organisations expect additional investment in data systems and services, with some planning and implementation assistance likely to be needed
• organisations expect a high regulatory burden, noting this is dependent on the type of NMTF to be implemented i.e. full track and trace, point of dispense verification, or a dispersed data model
• organisations are confident they could participate in an NMTF, however, there is a clear need for further detailed stakeholder engagement on the function and scope of an NMTF.

In addition to these results, there are a range of other issues that require further detailed consultation, for example, impacts on patient privacy, data security, and the appropriate role of governments.

We will continue to consult with stakeholders as the NMTF policy recommendations are further developed. More opportunities for wider consultation on key elements of the framework will be available at a later date.

The Minister for Health has committed to development of a Nurse Practitioner 10 Year Plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to describe a set of actions that can be taken to address nurse practitioner workforce issues, and enhance the delivery of nursing care to the Australian community.

As part of the development of the Plan the Department of Health sought the views of stakeholders from 19 November to 20 December 2021. The purpose of the consultation was to collect ideas from a wide range of stakeholders on their perspectives, experiences and knowledge of nurse practitioners (NP) and to identify benefits, barriers and workforce solutions to inform development of the Plan.

The total submissions received was 496 with 458 online survey responses and 38 written submissions via email. Of the online survey responses, 64% (295) of respondents completed the long-form and 36% (163) the short-form survey. Of the total submissions, 430 (87%) responded as an individual and 63 (13%) responded on behalf of an organisation or institution.

The high response rate received to this open consultation was welcomed and has highlighted the interest in this work. The mix of responses from consumers, nurse practitioners, health professionals and organisations provided a comprehensive picture of current NP workforce issues.

The Department reviewed and analysed all the responses received and prepared a consultation analysis report which will be used to inform development of the Plan.

For your feedback on the draft Healthy Food Partnership Serving Size Recommendations and example pages of the Industry Best Practice Guide (the Guide). The Guide aims to provide practical solutions to support the food industry to reduce the serving sizes. The Guide covers 11 discretionary foods and beverages for the retail and out of home sectors.

We received 27 submissions from food industry, public health organisations, academia, government and consumers. There was strong support for portion and serving size guidance as a public health measure. Practical and detailed feedback was provided on the individual categories and the design of the Guide. Useful feedback was also provided on the look and feel of the layout of the example pages and the usefulness of the included information.

We reviewed and considered the feedback provided and developed a Consultation Summary. The working group refined the serving sizes and tailored the content of the Guide. Among other changes, the title of the Guide was amended to the ‘Industry Guide to Voluntary Serving Size Reduction’.

The final Guide is now available on the Healthy Food Partnership website.

The Consultation Summary is available on the Consultation Hub and the Healthy Food Partnership website. Complete submissions will be published on the website (if consent to publish was granted by the respondent).

Between November 2020 and January 2021, the Department of Health sought feedback on the The Framework for the Collection, Release, Use and Publication of Voluntary Indigenous Identifier Data (VII Data Framework). Specifically, the Department asked:

1. Does the VII Data Framework clearly set out the legal and ethical obligations for data users?
2. What suggestions do you have on how the Department should communicate the legal and ethical obligations to data users?
3. Does the VII Data Framework sufficiently protect Medicare estimations and enrolment data?
4. What suggestions do you have on how VII data should be used?
5. Is the Five Safes Framework an appropriate way to assess data requests?
6. What else should be considered when assessing a request for VII data?
7. How would you assess the types of statistical data tables that can be released to data users?
8. Please include any other comments about the VII Data Framework below

Seven organisations and four individuals responded to the consultation including, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health authorities, doctor peak organisations, a nurses’ and mid-wives’ group and government agencies. Most respondents were satisfied with the VII Data Framework’s  legal and ethical obligations, protections for Medicare and enrolment data, and access and release arrangements.

Specific feedback on the VII Data Framework include:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Principles need to be strengthened.
2. It should include a supplement that further clarifies a user’s legal and ethical obligations.
3. It should include a metadata document detailing technical information about the VII variables.
4. It should provide further details on what the VII can and can’t be used for.
5. Endorsement of the use of VII data in linkage or integration projects, provided an Accredited Integrating Authority conducted the linkage and all other restrictions on VII data are met (i.e. data can only be used for statistical purposes, and not to identify individuals, and must be used for health-related research and policy development).
6. Requests for VII unit record data should have approval from a Human Research Ethics Committee with expertise in evaluating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research projects.
7. Action should be taken to improve VII coverage including via data linkage and communication with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
8. Priority access should be available for planning and policy development.
9. VII data should be released at lower levels of geographic aggregation.

The Department appreciates all the feedback and thanks all respondents.

The Department has considered all responses, and these will be used to inform updates to the VII Data Framework.

1. While some information on this will be added to the VII Data Framework, Indigenous Data Sovereignty is a broader issue that the Department will address in the context of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and in collaboration with the National Indigenous Australians Agency.
2. Additional information on legal and ethical obligations will be added to the VII Data Framework.
3. A metadata document will be included in the appendix of the VII Data Framework .
4. The VII Data Framework will include more detail on appropriate use of VII data, as well as specifying prohibited uses (e.g. to identify or target individuals).
5. Information on the circumstances guiding linkage of VII data will be included in the Framework.
6. The VII Data Framework will specify that requests for unit record data for a research project must be accompanied by approval from a Human Research Ethics Committee with expertise in evaluating research including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
7. There are currently no plans for a broad-based communications strategy, but the Department notes the work of ACCHS in this space which has supported growth in VII enrolment of 3,000 new enrolments per month on average over the last ten years.
8. While prioritising access by particular users is not currently planned, the Department continuously reviews and refines the data release process to better meet the needs of users and stakeholders.
9. Currently, MBS estimates that use the VII are available at the State/Territory, Remoteness Area and PHN levels. Lower levels of aggregation will become available as coverage increases.

For views and input across all sectors of the Australian community about a Lung Cancer Screening enquiry to investigate the feasibility of a national lung cancer screening program for people at high risk of lung cancer.

That many factors should be considered across many sectors of the Australian community and the health system.  Public consultation submissions and input from stakeholders were detailed. Thank you for this feedback.

We considered all feedback and engaged a consultant to analyse and summarise consultation outcomes for consideration by the Minister for Health. The Lung Cancer Screening enquiry report will be submitted to the Minister for Health in October 2020.