A Senate inquiry has revealed that there appears to be no legal barrier preventing human intervention in Australia’s controversial aged care algorithm, the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), despite government restrictions on assessors overriding its outcomes. The IAT, introduced in November as part of the Support at Home reforms, determines eligibility and funding levels for aged care services.
Melissa Davey, Medical Editor at The Guardian, reports that the algorithm has frequently under-assessed care needs, prompting criticism and concern among aged care professionals. Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne questioned the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing about the “legislative basis for the inability to have human override,” but department officials indicated that the ban is linked to achieving “objective outcomes” rather than any legal requirement.
The IAT user manual mentions an override function, but it does not cite any specific provision of the Aged Care Act to justify restricting assessors. Liberal senator Paul Scarr previously highlighted that the relevant Aged Care Rules make no reference to overriding assessments, calling the restrictions “very disturbing” and raising concerns about automated decision-making in inappropriate circumstances.
During a Senate hearing, the department confirmed that the IAT had been tested with human override during 2024–2025, but assessments without this feature have not been validated. The department has received 834 requests for internal review of IAT outcomes since November, with reviews taking over two months on average. Senator Allman-Payne emphasized the negative impact on older Australians, especially those with degenerative conditions, whose care needs have been downgraded due to the algorithm’s assessments.
Independent senator David Pocock questioned the purpose of experienced assessors being unable to correct errors, asking, “Where is the human in all of this?” The inquiry highlights ongoing concerns about the reliance on automated systems in sensitive areas such as aged care, and the potential consequences for vulnerable Australians.
Source: Melissa Davey, The Guardian