Skip to content

We’re hiring doctors! Learn more

ADHD rules by state

ADHD rules in Australian Capital Territory

In the ACT the rules below are about stimulant medicines, which are 'controlled medicines': an adult's ADHD diagnosis has to come from a psychiatrist, a paediatrician or a neurologist, and a GP cannot make that diagnosis or start stimulant treatment. Once a specialist has diagnosed you and your treatment is stable, a GP who has completed approved training and notified the Chief Health Officer can take over your ongoing prescriptions - that started on 11 February 2026, it is each GP's own decision whether to do it, and if you have had a long break from treatment you need a specialist review first. The ACT has said trained GPs will later be able to diagnose and start treatment as well, but as at 21 August 2026 that stage has not started, and as described it would still require a separate approval for each patient.

Last checked 2026-08-21. These rules change, sometimes at short notice. We date every page and cite the source we used, so you can check it yourself. Nothing here is advice about your own treatment — your prescriber and your state health department are the authorities on that.

Who can diagnose you

Who is allowed to make the diagnosis here?

For an adult to be treated with stimulant medicines in the ACT, the ADHD diagnosis must be made or confirmed by a medical practitioner registered in Australia who holds specialist registration in psychiatry, in paediatrics and child health, or as a physician in the field of neurology. As at 21 August 2026 a GP cannot make that diagnosis for this purpose, and neither can a psychologist.

Both ACT standing approvals define the specialist group the same way. NI2026-8 (Schedule 1, clause 4) defines a 'relevant specialist' as a medical practitioner holding specialist registration under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in Psychiatry; Paediatrics and Child Health; or Physician, in the field of specialty practice of Neurology. The designated-prescriber table in NI2026-9 (Schedule 1, clause 2) lists the same three: Psychiatry (all fields), Paediatrics and child health (any field), Physician (Neurology). Both instruments define ADHD as a diagnosis meeting the criteria in DSM-5 (or a later edition) or ICD-11 (or a later revision). An overseas diagnosis does not qualify on its own. The ACT prescriber FAQ asks 'Do ADHD diagnoses made by doctors overseas qualify as a previous diagnosis?' and answers: 'No - the diagnosis must be made or confirmed by a medical practitioner in Australia who is recognised in the ACT as a designated clinician who can diagnose and initiate treatment. As at April 2026, this includes paediatricians, neurologists and psychiatrists.' A psychologist is not within the specialist definition and cannot prescribe, so a psychologist's assessment cannot by itself open the medicines pathway. We found no ACT source stating what standing a psychologist's, nurse practitioner's or GP's ADHD diagnosis has for purposes other than prescribing (see unconfirmed). Scope note, which matters for reading all of this correctly: ACT drugs-and-poisons law regulates who may prescribe a controlled medicine. It does not purport to say who may make a clinical diagnosis in the abstract. The specialist requirement above is the condition that gates the stimulant-medicine pathway. A further stage is announced but NOT in force. The ACT page states: 'GPs who have undertaken further training will be authorised to diagnose ADHD and initiate medication in non-complex patients, over 6 years of age, and who are not drug-dependent. GPs undertaking ADHD diagnosis and initiating stimulant treatment will be required to apply for CHO approval for individual patients.' It also states 'More information on stage 2 will be available later in 2026.' That page was last updated 14 July 2026 and, as at 21 August 2026, we located no instrument giving effect to stage 2. Note that stage 2 as described would not remove approval: it would move GPs into a per-patient Chief Health Officer approval. The consumer-facing ACT page 'ADHD care in the ACT' (last updated 10 February 2026) states the same change more briefly - 'GPs who complete further additional training will be able to diagnose ADHD and start [medicines] for patients with ADHD in the ACT later this year' - without the per-patient approval condition; the prescriber page carries the fuller statement.

Who can start treatment

Who can start you on medicine, and what approval do they need?

Stimulant treatment for an adult can only be started by a psychiatrist, a paediatrician or a neurologist (prescribing under the standing approval), or by another prescriber holding an individual Chief Health Officer approval for that patient, which for an adult requires documented specialist support. A GP cannot start stimulant treatment for an adult in the ACT as at 21 August 2026. This scheme covers controlled medicines only, so it is not a statement about ADHD medicines that are not controlled medicines.

Since 11 February 2026, NI2026-9 lets a designated prescriber - a practitioner with Ahpra specialist registration in Psychiatry (all fields), Paediatrics and child health (any field), or Physician (Neurology) - prescribe a controlled medicine for ADHD, including at initiation, without applying for an individual approval for each patient. The conditions (Schedule 1, clause 3) are: the prescription is indicated for ADHD for a patient aged four or older; the medicine is one listed in the instrument's table and the dose does not exceed the maximum daily dose limit set there; the prescription is generated electronically; the prescriber reasonably believes the patient is not a drug-dependent person; and the prescriber is registered with the ACT Monitored Medicines Database (Canberra Script) and reviews and considers relevant patient information in the patient's profile before issuing each prescription. No extra training and no notification are required for these specialists - the FAQ states 'No additional training is required for designated prescribers.' The GP standing approval cannot be used to start treatment. NI2026-8 is titled a standing approval 'for the continued treatment of ADHD' and its clause 3(c)(ii) requires the medicine be 'for the continuation of a course of treatment that has been initiated or reviewed by a relevant specialist'. Outside the standing approvals, prescribing runs on an individual Chief Health Officer approval. The ACT states a prescriber must have that approval to prescribe a controlled medicine when 'a person is drug-dependent; a person has been prescribed the same controlled medicine within the previous 2 months; the person is expected to require the prescribed controlled medicine for longer than 2 months' - so ongoing ADHD treatment always needs authority in one of the two forms. The adult categories in the Controlled Medicines Prescribing Standards 2026 (No 1) are Category 5B (non-drug-dependent people aged 19 or older who have been initiated or reviewed by a paediatrician, psychiatrist or neurologist within the previous three years; applications by prescribers other than those three 'must be accompanied by documented support from an appropriate specialist ... that clearly supports the requested dosing regime and ADHD diagnosis') and Category 5D (non-drug-dependent people aged 19 or older where the applicant is a psychiatrist or neurologist). Either may be issued for up to three years. Chapter 5 carries the note: 'Specified prescribers may prescribe under a Standing Controlled Medicines Approval to prescribe psychostimulant medicines for ADHD. All other psychostimulant prescribing requires CHO approval.' There is a drafting asymmetry worth noting: the standing approval includes paediatrics with no upper age limit, while the individual-approval category for people aged 19 and over lists only psychiatrist or neurologist as the applicant. What this scheme does and does not cover. The Chief Health Officer approval scheme applies to 'controlled medicines', defined in the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT), section 11(2) as 'a substance to which the medicines and poisons standard, schedule 8 applies'. Every medicine listed in the two standing approvals and in the psychostimulant chapter of the Prescribing Standards is a stimulant. An ADHD medicine that is not a controlled medicine falls outside this scheme entirely - no standing approval, no Chief Health Officer approval, and none of the specialist-diagnosis conditions above are imposed by these instruments on prescribing it. So the rule 'only a specialist can start treatment' is a rule about stimulant medicines. We could not find any ACT Government page that addresses non-stimulant ADHD medicines (the ACT's page is titled 'Prescribing stimulants for ADHD' and does not mention them), and whether a particular medicine is a controlled medicine is set by the national Poisons Standard, not by the ACT. Whether any non-stimulant option is clinically appropriate is a matter for a doctor, not something this page can answer.

Who can continue it

Once you are stable, who can keep prescribing?

Ongoing prescriptions can come from the specialist under the standing approval, or from a GP who has completed one of the approved training courses and notified the Chief Health Officer, where the patient is aged six or over, has a written specialist diagnosis, is stable, and stays on the same class of stimulant medicine within the set dose limits. Otherwise the prescriber applies for an individual Chief Health Officer approval, which for an adult needs written specialist support. Taking part is each GP's own decision - it is not something a patient can require.

Route 1: the specialist. A psychiatrist, paediatrician or neurologist may keep prescribing under NI2026-9 with no per-patient application, on the same conditions that apply at initiation. Route 2: the GP continuation pathway (NI2026-8), in force since 11 February 2026. The prescriber must be a medical practitioner holding Ahpra specialist registration in General Practice (including a practitioner trained outside Australia who has been assessed and approved by Ahpra for specialist GP registration), or a practitioner enrolled as a General Practice registrar in a recognised primary care vocational training program administered by the RACGP or ACRRM. Before prescribing, the GP must have completed all modules of at least one of three approved training courses named in the instrument, and must have submitted a one-off notification form advising the Chief Health Officer of their intention to prescribe. The FAQ states: 'You will receive acknowledgment by email after your notification has been processed, at which time you can prescribe under the Standing CHO Approval.' The authority is personal - 'a prescriber is unable to utilise another prescriber's Standing CHO Approval authority to prescribe ADHD medicines, even if working at the same medical practice.' Conditions in the instrument (Schedule 1, clause 3): the prescription is indicated for ADHD for a patient aged six or older (there is no upper age limit, so adults are included); the medicine is listed in the instrument's table and the dose does not exceed the limit set there; it is for the continuation of a course of treatment initiated or reviewed by a relevant specialist; it is not a different listed medicine from the one previously prescribed, subject to one narrow exception in the instrument, and the instrument notes it does not prevent prescribing different formulations of the same medicine; the prescriber reasonably believes the patient is not a drug-dependent person; and the prescriber is registered with Canberra Script and reviews the patient's profile before issuing each prescription. Prescriptions must be electronically generated - 'Handwritten prescriptions cannot be issued under this CHO Standing approval.' On real-time monitoring the FAQ warns that a green tick pop-up is not enough: 'you must review your patient's profile in Canberra Script and not rely on the pop-up notifications.' Switching a patient to a different class of stimulant medicine is not permitted under this pathway; the ACT says that aligns with NSW for cross-border reasons and that a class switch 'involves initiation and titration and subsequent side effect management, therefore, it has been decided that this is outside of scope'. Stability. The instrument itself contains no stability condition. 'Patient's ADHD is stable' appears in the ACT's guidance - the FAQ's eligibility list and the ACT webpage ('limited to patients who are stable, aged 6 years and over, have an existing ADHD diagnosis from a relevant specialist'). Treat stability as a published eligibility requirement in ACT guidance rather than a term of the instrument. A break in treatment matters. The FAQ: 'If the patient has taken an extended break from taking their ADHD stimulant medication, they would not be considered a stable patient and therefore, would be required to see a psychiatrist, paediatrician or neurologist for a review. In this scenario, GPs should continue to apply for individual patient CHO Approval until such time as the non-GP specialist considers them to be stable and hands care to the GP.' Dose changes. The ACT page says that under the standing approval a GP 'may make dose adjustments within defined maximum daily dose limits as part of ongoing treatment', and the FAQ qualifies this: 'Yes - minor dose adjustments can be made within the specified dose ranges.' The instrument itself only sets a ceiling; it does not confer a dose-adjustment power in terms. Different rules apply on the individual-approval route: the Prescribing Standards state that 'Categories 5A, 5B, 5E and 5G do not permit a prescriber to initiate an increase in dose or change in stimulant controlled medicine without appropriate specialist support.' We publish no dose figures. The three-yearly specialist review. FAQ: 'If you have completed the required training and informed the CHO of your intention to prescribe under the Standing CHO Approval, there is no longer a requirement for your patients to have a three yearly review from a specialist.' Where the GP has not taken up the standing approval and is working under shared care, 'the patient will continue to be required to be reviewed by a specialist every three years.' The pathway is optional. FAQ: 'Do I have to participate? A: This pathway is optional. Existing shared care arrangements and individual CHO approval processes continue unchanged for: GPs who choose not to prescribe under the Standing CHO Approval; and patients who fall outside the eligibility conditions of the instrument.' Whether a particular GP prescribes under it is that GP's decision.

Telehealth

Can this happen by video, and does the practitioner have to be here?

ACT medicines law sets no in-person or face-to-face requirement for ADHD assessment or for stimulant prescribing - it regulates who may prescribe and under what authority, not how the consultation happens. The limits that do apply are national professional ones (a real-time consultation is required; questionnaire-only prescribing is not supported) plus the ACT conditions that apply to every prescription regardless of mode: a Canberra Script check before each prescription and an electronically generated prescription.

We read the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (republication R57), both standing approvals and the psychostimulant chapter of the Controlled Medicines Prescribing Standards 2026 (No 1) and found no telehealth, video, in-person or face-to-face provision for ADHD. This is the absence of any ACT rule, not an affirmative ACT statement that telehealth assessment or prescribing is permitted. The governing standard is therefore the Medical Board of Australia's guidelines 'Telehealth consultations with patients' (page reviewed 1 September 2023). The Board 'supports the responsible and safe use of telehealth'; it 'is not appropriate for all medical consultations and should not be considered as a routine substitute for in-person consultations'; 'when practical, video consultations are preferable to telephone consultations'; telehealth 'is generally most appropriate in the context of a continuing clinical relationship with a patient that also involves in-person consultations'; and the guidelines 'do not prevent or discourage one-off telehealth consultations'. The standard of care 'must be safe and as far as possible meet the same standards of care as provided in an in-person consultation'. The Board draws a hard line at prescribing without a real-time consultation: 'Prescribing or providing healthcare for a patient without a real-time direct consultation, whether in-person, via video or telephone, is not good practice and is not supported by the Board. This includes asynchronous requests for medication communicated by text, email, live-chat or online that do not take place in the context of a real-time continuous consultation and are based on the patient completing a health questionnaire, when the practitioner has never spoken with the patient.' It also directs practitioners to 'be aware of, and comply with state, territory and jurisdictional legislative requirements when prescribing medicines, including using government real-time prescription monitoring service (RTPM) or equivalent ... This includes in the jurisdictions of both the prescriber and patient.' The ACT sets out when its own monitoring system must be checked: 'You must check Canberra Script if any of the below applies; a) The patient has an ACT residential address; b) If you, as the prescriber, are prescribing within the ACT; or c) If the medication is dispensed at a pharmacy in ACT.' Where a prescriber has concerns that a patient is also seeing an interstate or telehealth prescriber, or having medicine dispensed outside the ACT, the ACT encourages checking the other jurisdiction's monitoring system as well. Whether a given telehealth consultation attracts a Medicare rebate is a separate Commonwealth funding question that we could not confirm (see unconfirmed).

If you move here

What happens to a diagnosis and treatment from another state?

A diagnosis made by an Australian specialist in psychiatry, paediatrics and child health or neurology is recognised in the ACT; an overseas diagnosis is not, on its own. Another state's or territory's prescribing approval does not carry over: once the medicine is dispensed in the ACT, or the patient has an ACT address, the prescriber needs ACT authority - either by meeting the conditions of an ACT standing approval or by holding an individual Chief Health Officer approval for that patient.

What carries over. Nothing in NI2026-8 requires the 'relevant specialist' who initiated or reviewed treatment to be in the ACT - the definition turns on specialist registration under the national law, which is national. The only exclusion the ACT states is overseas diagnoses: 'the diagnosis must be made or confirmed by a medical practitioner in Australia who is recognised in the ACT as a designated clinician who can diagnose and initiate treatment.' We treat 'an interstate Australian specialist diagnosis is recognised' as a reading of the rule rather than an express ACT statement (see unconfirmed). What does not carry over. The ACT position is that the ACT connection triggers ACT requirements: 'if a patient is to be collecting their medicines in the ACT, regardless of the jurisdiction their prescriber works in, the prescriber must comply with the Standing CHO Approval or apply for individual CHO Approval.' In practice one of these has to be in place: 1. The person stays with a psychiatrist, paediatrician or neurologist, who prescribes under NI2026-9 with no per-patient application, provided the instrument's conditions are met. 2. A GP - in the ACT or interstate - has completed the approved training and lodged the notification, and prescribes under NI2026-8, provided the person is aged six or over, has a written specialist diagnosis, is stable, and the prescribing stays within the instrument's conditions. The FAQ: 'GPs outside of the ACT can apply to prescribe for their ACT patients under this Standing CHO Approval.' That authority is personal to the individual GP and does not transfer from a previous prescriber. 3. The prescriber applies for an individual Chief Health Officer approval - Category 5B for an adult (initiated or reviewed by a paediatrician, psychiatrist or neurologist within the previous three years, with documented specialist support where the applicant is not one of those three) or Category 5D (applicant is a psychiatrist or neurologist). These may be issued for up to three years. Cross-border with NSW is the common Canberra case and the ACT says the two schemes were aligned deliberately, including the bar on switching medicine class, 'to assist with cross-border prescribing arrangements'. An ACT GP 'can prescribe under this arrangement for NSW patients if the medications are dispensed in ACT pharmacies'; for dispensing in NSW the ACT points prescribers to the equivalent NSW Health continuation-prescriber arrangements. Canberra Script must be checked where the patient has an ACT residential address, the prescriber is prescribing within the ACT, or the medicine is dispensed at an ACT pharmacy. Timing. Because a prescriber has no ACT authority for a person until the notification is acknowledged or an individual approval is granted, there can be a gap on arrival. The ACT states that applications lodged through Canberra Script 'can be processed in 1 to 2 business days if no further information is needed' and that 'Urgent applications can be processed within one working day if no further information is needed'; a Chief Health Officer reference number is issued for each approval. Prescribers can contact the ACT Health Protection Service where an application needs urgent consideration. One trap for people who move after a gap in treatment: a person who has taken an extended break is not treated as stable and must be reviewed by a psychiatrist, paediatrician or neurologist before a GP can continue prescribing under the standing approval. We could not confirm whether an ACT pharmacy may dispense a controlled-medicine prescription that was lawfully written interstate before the move (see unconfirmed).

What we could not confirm

We went looking for these and could not find a primary source. We would rather show you the gap than fill it with something that sounds right. Take these to your prescriber or the department directly.

  • Whether stage 2 (trained GPs diagnosing and initiating) commenced between 14 July and 21 August 2026. The ACT prescriber page, last updated 14 July 2026, still describes it as forthcoming, and the ACT Legislation Register entry for NI2026-8 was current as at 21 August 2026 showing the instrument in force and unamended. But we could not enumerate every ACT notifiable instrument notified in that window: the register's search and browse endpoints returned HTTP 404 to us and this session's web-search budget was exhausted. Re-check the register immediately before publication.
  • The training requirements, conditions and commencement date for stage 2. The FAQ says only: 'Further information regarding training requirements and other conditions of this authorisation will be provided later in 2026.' No instrument giving effect to stage 2 was located.
  • How the general short-term standing approval interacts with stimulant prescribing. Section 556 of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 gives a standing approval to prescribe a controlled medicine for a treatment period of less than two months where the patient is not drug-dependent and has not been prescribed the same controlled medicine in the previous two months, and section 556A lets the Chief Health Officer declare medicines to which that approval does not apply. The ACT's published position is that all psychostimulant prescribing other than under a Standing Controlled Medicines Approval requires Chief Health Officer approval, and that GPs cannot initiate. We could NOT locate a declaration under section 556A excluding stimulant medicines, so the precise legal interaction is not resolved on the face of the documents we could obtain. We have stated the ACT's published position, not our own reading of section 556.
  • Whether the ACT public mental health service accepts new adult ADHD assessment referrals, and any waiting list position. One researcher relied on news reporting (Canberra Times, 3 February 2026) that ACT Adult Community Mental Health Services stopped accepting new adult ADHD assessment referrals from 1 October 2025 with a wait exceeding 24 months, citing a May 2025 ministerial briefing. We did not fetch that article, could not obtain the briefing, and found no ACT Health or Canberra Health Services page stating it. It is not published here as fact.
  • Wait times and costs for a private adult ADHD assessment in the ACT. No government, Ahpra, RACGP or RANZCP source gives a figure. Private clinic and telehealth marketing figures were not treated as sources.
  • Whether ADHD medicines that are not controlled medicines (the non-stimulant category) are addressed anywhere by the ACT Government. They are not mentioned on the ACT ADHD page, in either standing approval, or in the psychostimulant chapter of the Prescribing Standards. Our statement that the Chief Health Officer approval scheme does not reach them follows from the definition of 'controlled medicine' in the Act and from what the instruments actually list - it is not an express ACT statement, and scheduling is set by the national Poisons Standard rather than by the ACT.
  • Whether an ACT pharmacy may dispense a controlled-medicine prescription written under another state's or territory's authority before a person moved. The ACT's published rule addresses the prescriber's authority, not the dispensing of a script already written. Confirm with the ACT Health Protection Service.
  • That an interstate Australian specialist diagnosis is recognised. No ACT source says so in terms. It follows from the instrument keying off national specialist registration and from the FAQ excluding only overseas diagnoses, and is presented on this page as a reading of the rule.
  • What standing a diagnosis by a psychologist, nurse practitioner or GP has in the ACT for purposes other than prescribing. No ACT source addresses it.
  • Whether any pathway exists for nurse practitioners or other non-medical prescribers to prescribe stimulant medicines for adult ADHD in the ACT. Neither standing approval includes any prescriber category other than medical practitioners, and we found no ACT instrument authorising one.
  • Current Medicare telehealth rebate conditions, including whether a prior face-to-face relationship is required for GP or specialist telehealth items. We confirmed that ACT law imposes no in-person requirement; we did not confirm what attracts a rebate. This is a Commonwealth funding question, not an ACT prescribing rule.
  • The Chief Health Officer's decision powers over an individual approval. Section 562(1) of the Regulation lists four decisions (approve as applied for, approve in different terms, refuse, or refer to the medicines advisory committee), with conditions available under section 570, and section 569 refers to a decision 'to amend or revoke a controlled medicines approval'. Skeptic reviews disagreed on whether a revocation power exists in that Division. The claim has been removed from this page rather than resolved.

What changed recently

  1. 16 December 2025

    The ACT Government agreed to amend the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 to insert section 554, allowing the Chief Health Officer to approve a whole class of prescribers to prescribe a controlled medicine by notifiable instrument, instead of patient by patient.

    ACT Government (Health and Community Services Directorate) — FAQ - Prescribing psychostimulants for ADHD in the ACT

  2. 8 January 2026

    Three instruments made by the Chief Health Officer on 2 January 2026 were notified: NI2026-8 (standing approval for GPs to prescribe for the continued treatment of ADHD), NI2026-9 (standing approval for psychiatrists, paediatricians and neurologists to prescribe for ADHD), and NI2026-7 (Controlled Medicines Prescribing Standards 2026 (No 1)).

    ACT Parliamentary Counsel (ACT Legislation Register) — NI2026-8 register entry

  3. 11 February 2026

    All three instruments commenced. From this date a psychiatrist, paediatrician or neurologist no longer needs an individual Chief Health Officer approval for each patient aged four or older within the stated conditions, and a GP who has completed approved training and notified the Chief Health Officer may continue prescribing for an eligible patient aged six or older without an individual approval and without the previously required three-yearly specialist review. Electronic prescriptions and a Canberra Script check before every prescription are conditions of both.

    ACT Parliamentary Counsel (ACT Legislation Register) — NI2026-8 (Standing CHO approval for general practitioners), Schedule 1

  4. 11 February 2026

    The Controlled Medicines Prescribing Standards 2026 (No 1) replaced the 2023 Standards. The adult ADHD categories may now be issued for up to three years, and a note was added that all psychostimulant prescribing other than under a standing approval requires Chief Health Officer approval.

    ACT Parliamentary Counsel (ACT Legislation Register) — Controlled Medicines Prescribing Standards 2026 (No 1), NI2026-7, Schedule 1 Chapter 5

  5. 14 July 2026

    The ACT prescriber page was last updated and still describes stage 2 - trained GPs diagnosing ADHD and initiating treatment for non-complex, non-drug-dependent patients over six, with an individual Chief Health Officer approval required for each patient - as coming 'later in 2026'. As at 21 August 2026 we located no instrument commencing it.

    ACT Government (Health and Community Services Directorate) — Prescribing stimulants for ADHD

Available across Australia by telehealth.

Is Seen right for you?Compare all states