‘Letting the algorithm rip’: no legal basis for lack of human override of aged care funding tool, inquiry hears | Aged care
There appears to be no legal impediment to a controversial algorithm determining financial support for older Australians being overridden by a human, a Senate inquiry has heard, despite government assessors being banned from doing so.
The Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), introduced in November as part of aged care Home Support reforms, is used to assess eligibility for aged care services and determine funding levels.
But Guardian Australia reported how the algorithm often under-judged levels of need and criticism of the IAT after the government removed the ability for assessors to override an incorrect result for home support.
On Wednesday night, Department of Health, Disability and Aging staff confirmed the government had sought advice on how to reinstate the override function during a crisis. Listening to Home Support.
Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne asked senior department staff It’s about “the legal basis for not being able to invalidate people as part of this process.”
Robert Day, the department’s first deputy secretary, said: “The reason it is not invalidated is because it is an objective outcome.”
“If you got those points on your evaluation, you get that level of classification…there is no discretionary element,” Day said.
The IAT user manual includes a section on the override function, but does not expressly link any prohibition on its use to a specific provision of the Aged Care Act.
Liberal senator Paul Scarr concerns previously expressed On the legality of preventing assessors from overriding the outcome, he told the Senate last month that although the user guide “makes reference to rule 81-10 of the Aged Care Rules” those rules “make no reference whatsoever to significant assessments”.
“These Aged Care Rules have been placed before the empowered legislation review committee, of which I am a member,” he said. “There was no suggestion that there would be these guidelines to prevent assessments from being overridden.”
Scarr told Guardian Australia it was “very disturbing” that a user guide “imposes automated decision-making in clearly inappropriate situations”.
It comes after a whistleblower told Guardian Australia that the algorithm often leaves older Australians without adequate funding and care, or reduces the level of their available support.
Ministry staff also confirmed on Wednesday that tests of the algorithm were conducted by the ministry in 2024 and 2025, but only a human override was still available. Not tested after override feature was removed.
The algorithm component of the IAT was a key part of senators’ questioning at Wednesday’s hearing.
“What’s the point of having someone with experience… and not giving them the ability to actually make changes if they see a mistake?” independent senator David Pocock asked.
“Where is the human in all this?”
In response, department staff said it is not possible to know how many times an assessor has raised concerns about the outcome of the IAT because this data is not tracked.
The inquiry heard the department had received 834 requests for internal review of IAT results since its introduction in November. A review that takes more than two months on average is the only recourse if the algorithm makes a mistake.
“Last night we learned that IAT review requests have skyrocketed since 1 November and the legal and regulatory basis for the automation of classifications and removal of human oversight is dubious at best,” Allman-Payne told Guardian Australia on Thursday.
“It’s clear that removing human intervention and allowing the algorithm to decay has detrimental effects on older people. When the assessed care needs of people with degenerative conditions such as motor neurone disease are reduced, it becomes clear that something is wrong.”
