• long running

Lung Cancer Screening: Free with Doctor Referral for Eligible 50s-70s @ National Lung Cancer Screen Program

770
Lung Cancer Screening: Free with Doctor Referral for Eligible 50s-70s @ National Lung Cancer Screen Program
Go to Deal
SupeNintendoChalmers on 17/03/2026 - 10:18 lungcancerscreen.org.au (800 clicks)
Last edited 17/03/2026 - 10:35 by 1 other user

Saw this on TV a few minutes ago.

Before the Libertarian bros come out and say 'it's Not fReE', firstly get off the roads I pay for and secondly, stop being so selfish.

Lung cancer screening is a free scan that can help find up to 70% of lung cancers earlier, when it’s easier to treat.

What is lung screening?

Lung screening uses a low-dose Computed Tomography (CT) scan of your chest to look for signs of lung cancer before symptoms start.

You may be eligible for a free scan if you:

are aged 50 to 70, and
smoke tobacco cigarettes or have quit in the last 10 years, and
have no symptoms of lung cancer (e.g. coughing up blood, wheezing, shortness of breath), and
have a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more (your doctor can help you determine this).
What are pack years?

Pack-years is a way for your doctor to calculate how many cigarettes you have smoked in your lifetime. This helps to understand your risk of lung cancer.

Pack-years are calculated by multiplying the number of cigarette packs smoked per day by the number of years you have smoked.

For example, one pack-year is equal to smoking 20 cigarettes (one pack) per day for one year, or 40 cigarettes (two packs) per day for half a year:

1 pack a day for 1 year = 1 pack year
2 packs a day for 6 months = 1 pack year
Good to know: You won’t need to calculate this yourself. Pack year calculation is an imperfect science, and your doctor or healthcare provider will help you calculate this at your appointment.
How often should I screen?

If you’re eligible for the National Lung Cancer Screening Program, you should have a scan every 2 years.

After your first scan, you’ll be sent your results, which will determine the next steps.

It's important to screen when you are due so that any changes or signs of lung cancer can be found early.
How do I join the program?

If you think you might be eligible for lung screening, you will need to speak to a doctor or healthcare provider to talk about your smoking history, eligibility and receive a program-specific request form.
How much does it cost?

The program is free. Those eligible can join the program and be referred for their first scan to begin their regular lung screening every 2 years.

Your doctor's clinic or health service may charge a fee for the appointment. We recommend calling your clinic before your appointment to understand any costs you may need to pay and ensuring your Medicare details are up to date.

Health & Beauty Health Screening

Related Stores

National Lung Cancer Screening Program
National Lung Cancer Screening Program

Comments

Old
Search through all the comments in this post.
    • soundboy5010 on 17/03/2026 - 10:30
      +3

      Saw this on TV a few minutes ago.

      How is that political? /s

    • ShouldIBuyIt on 17/03/2026 - 11:04
      +2

      Matey joined a month ago and thinks they own the place. OP has 228 posts, show some respect

  • unifex on 17/03/2026 - 10:40
    +3

    hehe so only the people who did the wrong thing for 30 years are eligible for free screening.

    • EtherealArchelon on 17/03/2026 - 11:16
      +12

      Because they're the ones in who benefit of screening outweighs the risk.

    • edfoo on 17/03/2026 - 11:18

      Exactly, not all smokers or ex-smokers are eligible, only those with heavy smoking history.

    • Horacio on 17/03/2026 - 12:09
      +11

      If you want lots of false negatives that require painful and dangerous lung biopsies, go ahead and screen everyone

      • juki on 17/03/2026 - 13:08
        +1

        i actually had a false negative while living overseas, and they dont just jump to doing a biopsy, they do repeat the scan and other stuff first - in my case it was an operator error (they werent used to someone as tall as i am)

        • Horacio on 18/03/2026 - 09:37

          Ah! Well in that case maybe we actually should go screen everyone! Although there's still the radiation exposure burden

          • juki on 18/03/2026 - 19:07
            +1

            @Horacio: why "in that case", i dont get your defensive reply. You were saying there are (lots of) false negatives and i replied yeah i've had one (i havent heard of anyone else having one though).
            if you are worried about radiation exposure, you get more flying to europe or japan.. its probably the equivalent of a melbourne to malaysia or thailand.
            Are you defensive because you were exaggerating about the biopsies ? its not the cleaner that does them, do you think the same about cardiac stenting ?

            • Horacio on 20/03/2026 - 21:39

              @juki: Not defensive at all, I was serious - if the risk of invasive checks is negligible then maybe we should be trying to catch as many cancers as we can at the earliest stage possible.

              • juki on 20/03/2026 - 22:18
                +1

                @Horacio: you're just going from one extreme to an other, there is a middle ground between dangerous and negligeable - you also dont seem to know what cancer is exactly by using the word catch

                but thats fine, you can have the last word from hereon thanks for the chat, you were polite :)

                • Horacio on 20/03/2026 - 22:23

                  @juki: Thanks also .. fortunately public health policy isn't being formulated here on OzB.. I just meant 'catch' as in discover and treat :)

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 12:29
      +1

      Read up on statistics theory 101 if you want to understand how population screening modalities work.

      Statistics is not as simple as it might first seem, it's applied maths that gets fairly complex fairly quickly.

    • iseeyou1312 on 17/03/2026 - 15:38

      They paid way more in taxes than these scans would ever cost.

      • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 16:00
        +3

        Now start accounting for the follow-up diagnostics and specialist care, chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy, hospital care and medicines for symptom management, and finally palliative care and end-of-life care.

        It's expensive to suffer so horribly and die prematurely from smoking.

    • AgroMcHung on 17/03/2026 - 22:31
      +2

      Yes, in the same way that only sick people qualify for PBS drugs.

  • Dollar General on 17/03/2026 - 10:41

    I passive smoke two packs a day. Do I qualify?

    • ShouldIBuyIt on 17/03/2026 - 11:00

      No, try to increase to 3 please

  • nomisg on 17/03/2026 - 11:14
    -8

    If you are an ex or current smoker, just go to your gp, say you have strain in your in your shoulder or chest that won't go away. Request a CT scan for lung cancer. At least in Adelaide, a number of imaging places bulk bill. If gp won't agree, find a new gp.

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 12:26
      +7

      If gp won't agree, find a new gp.

      Tell doctors how to practice medicine, expect better outcomes?

      It's called a "consult" for a reason, shared decision-making where patient's values meet a medical practitioner's clinical acumen and expertise.

      • SlickMick on 18/03/2026 - 17:11

        You don't believe in 2nd opionions?

        • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 18:34
          +2

          It's the lying and preloading a medical consult with an expected outcome that I primarily object to.

          Second opinions can be useful when faced with a more difficult and nuanced consideration with high stake results. They are based on the complexity of the medical issue, not the perceived pliancy of the professional medical assessment you receive.

    • juki on 17/03/2026 - 13:10
      +6

      why cant you just be honest and say the truth rather than trying to scam the GP because you think they might say no or because you think you know better.

        • juki on 17/03/2026 - 14:53
          +4

          so your plan is not to go to a doctor ever? fine its your choice, why bother scamming the gp instead of just being honest then?

          furthermore screening for a disease and managing a pandemic are different activities, but it looks like some of you are more into mind games and definately think you know better.

        • c-tho on 17/03/2026 - 19:14

          what happened five years ago

          • Ozdoc1 on 18/03/2026 - 00:47
            +2

            @c-tho: He injected bleach to protect himself from Covid and gave himself a brain injury

            • c-tho on 19/03/2026 - 00:05
              +2

              @Ozdoc1: 😔 could happen to anyone, thoughts and prayers

  • RichDad PoorSon on 17/03/2026 - 11:14
    +3

    I smell strawberry mixed with mango and a hint of mint.
    wait that's just passive vaping from someone next to me.

  • duodeta on 17/03/2026 - 11:17
    -2

    NSCLC

  • Mr Bargain Hunter on 17/03/2026 - 12:11
    +3

    If using Osimertinib (Tagrisso) to treat metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific EGFR mutations, Racura oncology is running a trial to overcome resistance to Osimertinib. Racura has the worlds most advanced MYC inhibitor with a drug that has been previously approved for use with historical data proving safety and efficacy.

    The condition is 6 months of treatment of Osimertinib. It has shown to reduce tumour size in combination with RC220 in pre clinical. Take a look if interested.

    • Barry off EastEnders on 17/03/2026 - 16:31
      +1

      Anybody that just down-voted ^ SMH..

      Thanks Mr Bargain Hunter.

  • i0k-0RU2zd10c on 17/03/2026 - 13:30
    -4

    off topic: war is not free either. I didn't vote for this, and I'm paying for it with my tax, and at the bowser.

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 14:25
      +5

      Social democracy. It's the worse system for civilisation, except for every other one we've tried before…

      Also, one, you don't directly vote for ligislative directives, that's what your representative is for, and two, your vote is one of 100,000s in the electorate you share in equity with everyone else. Have just a smidgen less main character vibes, please 🙏

  • GreenLego on 17/03/2026 - 14:23

    What if I was exposed to asbestos? Do I qualify for free screening?

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 14:27
      +4

      That's mesothelioma, not parenchymal lung disease.

      Fortunate for you, you have access to medical practitioners that can guide you to making medical decisions, just in case you might have one or two blind spots in your medical education…

  • Scrooge McDeal on 17/03/2026 - 15:06
    -4

    With the amount of money that people pay for Medicare, everything should be free.

    FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL (EVERYTHING INCLUDED).

    • SlickMick on 18/03/2026 - 17:16

      umm we're continually needing to feed more into medicare, and your solution is to increase it?

      Just how much are you willing to pay in tax?

  • Grish on 17/03/2026 - 16:05
    +1

    My understanding is that a CT/X-ray would be free anyway? Particularly with a referral from a bulk billing GP.

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 16:26
      +1

      Depends on the modality and indication, on whether the radiology clinic has an MBS billing item to bill Medicare, and then the discretion of the clinic (i.e. business) whether the MBS amount covers their operating costs if only bulk-billed.

      Best to speak to the clinics in each instance.

      • Grish on 17/03/2026 - 16:57
        +1

        Just from personal experience, having dyspnea symptoms I was referred to various x-ray/ct/breathing tests spread over months, with $0 out of pocket, no health care card either.

        Edit: side note, after watching the great tv series "The Pitt", makes me appreciate how good we have it here compared to the US.

        • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 17:10
          +1

          We really do.

          The vast majority of testing and treatments are 100% Medicare covered.

          Public funding for that comes from numerous sources of tax revenue - individual, company, consumption - with higher incomes and entities with higher economic output contributing proportionately more. We have much to be grateful for everyone who contributes, less or more depending on means.

          Also nice to keep in mind that some costs, less commonly, aren't covered by Medicare and the sustainability of both public and private providers continuing to offer them requires some private billings beyond the reach of Medicare. That's a part of the economic model of healthcare too, and we shouldn't bristle at paying for quality healthcare.

          • SlickMick on 18/03/2026 - 20:30
            +1

            @muwu: I noticed that QML have signs asking for campaigning to keep blood tests free.

            Medicare is stressed.

  • Barry off EastEnders on 17/03/2026 - 16:36
    +1

    The incidences of non-smoking related lung cancer, especially in young people are becoming tragically common.

    Thanks for this post OP.

    • SlickMick on 18/03/2026 - 20:32

      But this deal is only for non-non-smoking non-young people

  • Shoppingisfun on 17/03/2026 - 16:50
    +7

    Great post OP.
    My doctor told me his small clinic had already picked up 3 tumours through this program.

    • muwu on 17/03/2026 - 17:03

      How many of those tumours were benign?

      • Shoppingisfun on 17/03/2026 - 17:54
        +3

        They were actual cancers

  • voo123 on 18/03/2026 - 01:13
    +4

    I am radiographer who triages and conducts the exams for the lung screening program. Firstly, like most healthcare screening programs, it is highly advised to participate in it.

    Lung cancer has great prognosis with early detection. This is where the screening program has its value. Besides looking for obvious malignant lung masses, it’s primary focus is looking for lung nodules that are tracked and monitored. The presence of these nodules are common in the population and are generally benign. They are often asymptomatic, hence its a common incidental finding from other studies.

    The radiologist will chart and monitor specific nodules and provide recommendations for follow up scans if necessary. Most lung cancers arises from small nodules (no symptoms) that in rare instances expand into sizeable masses (symptomatic). Also, the density of the bone from the spine is also reviewed from the same study, for possible osteoporosis, which is another silent disease that can be easily managed with early detection.

    The CT scan is bulk billed as its a national screening program. Scan itself takes under 3mins. The admin and consenting process takes longer because most GPs don’t bother assessing their own patients for eligibility. I continually have to call and educate my referring GPs.

    • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 07:57

      Do you have a view on the mSv exposure of LDCT chests and longer term iatrogenic cancers.

      The risk being one for the reasons why we only screen higher risk lung cancer cohorts…

      I'm interested in using this modality, but I am low risk. Do you know much about the potential advent of ultra-low dose CTs that might only deliver 0.2-0.3mSv?

      • voo123 on 18/03/2026 - 09:54
        +2

        The dose parameters for lung screening are customised for very low dose. Something like 50-65% lower than a standard full diagnostic CT chest. Personally, I have no issues with the scan dose. CT dose risks are higher when multiple CTs are done in a short period of time and are clinically unjustified.

        The main reason we screen higher risk population is to save on costs and ensure that there is optimal benefit towards the groups of population with highest risk . This would be based on statistical modelling.

        0.2-0.3mSv might be abit ambitious, usually its around 0.4-0.5 mSv.

        • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 13:06

          To clarify the mSv.

          I understand annual baseline radiation exposure to be 3-5 mSv.

          A conventional CT chest to be 6-8 mSv.

          How low does a LDCT chest get? Are you saying as low as 0.5 mSv?!

          I was thinking more like 1.5-2.0 mSv at best 🤷🏼‍♂️ Which was still going to be about half a years' worth of radiation. Which gets repeated along the course of the screening period (decades). And exposed tissue include thyroid as well as lung parenchymal.

          • voo123 on 18/03/2026 - 13:49
            +2

            @muwu: The conventional CT dose figures are the reference limits. The higher end machines can achieve lower doses. Bariatric patients will be at reference limits or exceed it. Skinny will much lower.

            LDCT chest can get as low as 0.5mSv. The low dose enables the image quality to be degraded as much as possible but still retain enough diagnostic quality for lung lesions.

            The benefits of the screening in the eligible population exceeds the radiation risk.

            I.e an eligible screening patient that is 50-70years of age is far more likely to die from smoking related co-morbidities than the possible radiation risk in 25-30 years time.

            • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 18:40

              @voo123:

              LDCT chest can get as low as 0.5mSv.

              That's amazing!

              I am lean (BMI 22) and approaching middle age. At that kind of dose I'd start researching the data to come up with a risk/benefit analysis at different advancing ages for a low risk individual like myself. Hopefully the modality can be refined further to reduce the dose in the next decade or two by the time I'm 50+ yo.

    • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 18:43

      Also, the density of the bone from the spine is also reviewed from the same study, for possible osteoporosis, which is another silent disease that can be easily managed with early detection.

      Surely this is a secondary finding that is being detected incidentally, you'd want a DEXA to properly assess?

      • voo123 on 19/03/2026 - 10:52
        +1

        Yep its a secondary finding. Radiologist will measure the HU of the bone in the spine and will recommended a DEXA scan if indicated.

        • muwu on 19/03/2026 - 12:35

          How can it (oestoporosis) be managed so easily?

          • voo123 on 19/03/2026 - 16:15
            +1

            @muwu: It can’t be reversed but it can be managed and have risk mitigation with medication/supplements like prolia injections, vitamin D, lifestyle changes, mobility aids. Doctor call osteoporosis the silent disease because people don’t realise they have it until they break a bone. A hip fracture at an advanced age can be a life-ending injury.

            • muwu on 20/03/2026 - 00:46

              @voo123: What kind of "lifestyle changes" would affect osteoporosis progression?

  • ChadHominem on 18/03/2026 - 08:49

    Over 70 year olds not eligible? Is it too late for them or something?

    • voo123 on 18/03/2026 - 09:56
      +1

      Not eligible for lung screening. However, you can still have a full diagnostic CT chest if your GP believes it’s clinically justified. Both scans look for lung masses. Only difference is dose considerations.

    • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 13:14
      +1

      The benefit of screening reduces as you approach an advanced age. Early stage diagnoses of cancers may not be relevant to this cohort when they're statistical mortality rates from other causes is much higher. In fact, you introduce the risk of exposing them to interventions that burden them and reduce QoL and don't change their life expectancy.

      But it's individualised. If you have a patient that has passed the screening window for a cancer and they are fit, functional, and relatively free of chronic disease, they may have decent longevity potential and screening could be more beneficial than risky. I'm a big believer in continuing screening for elderly patients that are living very well (it feels like a good reward for the efforts they've put in to their health and fitness, and ensures we aren't ageist in our assessments).

  • CheapOjoe on 18/03/2026 - 15:29

    I know someone who was 63 very fit and healthy never drank alcohol all his life ate super healthy did regular exercise never smoked once had persistent cough for over 3 months assumed it was just a rough cold went to check himself he had stage 3 lung cancer died few months later

    • RichDad PoorSon on 18/03/2026 - 16:07
      -1

      I heard someone who was 23 obese and smoked. he died of complications. your story is neither here nor there. yet is the excuse I hear all the time about living a healthy life.
      live your life bro. do or not do. eat everything. moderately. and when its time to leave this world be content. its about the journey not the destination. If you were 23 obese and smoked and die happy. good on you.

    • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 18:47

      That's called n = 1, or a case study. Ask yourself what statistical power it has and how far it can take you to reaching a conclusion. You can think harder than that, I believe in you!

      • roscius on 18/03/2026 - 21:47

        I dont see the need for you to be flippant when he is raising a valid point. Perfectly healthy people develop lung cancer. When they develop symptoms, it is advanced and this is fairly common.

        • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 22:24
          +1

          He is saying that some incidences of cancer are sporadic and partly determined by chance (which is part of the DNA mutation and immunological surveillance model of cancer).

          We know this. A lot of people can throw out an anecdote exampling this.

          What does he mean, though, to comment on it?

          Apropos to cancer surveillance, he is providing a single case study in reference to the epidemiological statistics that underscore the model for a screening program. It's almost meaningless (and a diversion), and he needs to think harder than that. Don't excuse stupidity.

    • roscius on 18/03/2026 - 21:37

      My mum is 72. Never smoker and 15 months ago she developed a persistent cough. 12 months ago she got diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer with mets to the brain. I would advocate for everyone to get screened

      • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 22:16

        Your mother wouldn't have been appropriate for this screening prior to the onset of her symptoms. Nor afterwards.

        She could only have been investigated more promptly at symptom onset.

        An earlier diagnosis is unlikely to have made a significant difference to the staging of her malignancy.

        • roscius on 18/03/2026 - 22:50

          No not for this screening however investigation at symptoms onset may already be too advanced.

          Im not sure what you mean by earlier diagnosis would not have made a significant difference to her staging. Are you suggesting that identifying malignancies in earlier stages before nodal spread wont affect staging? Or affect treatment modalities?

          Regardless, all im suggesting is a more proactive approach would be beneficial.

          • muwu on 18/03/2026 - 23:21

            @roscius: You said symptom onset and diagnosis were 3 months apart (from your timeline description).

            The size and spread of her cancer (the staging) is unlikely to have been significantly different across that 3 month interval, i.e. when diagnosis was made after symptom onset.

            Many cancers are asymptomatic in the early and even middle stages of progression.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join