A controversial algorithm used in Australia's aged care system has come under fire during a Senate inquiry, with concerns raised about its accuracy and the removal of human override capabilities. The Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), implemented in November as part of the Support at Home reforms, assesses eligibility and funding levels for aged care services, but reports indicate it frequently underestimates needs and produces flawed outcomes, leading to widespread criticism.

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing staff confirmed at a hearing on Wednesday that the government has sought advice on reinstating the human override function for the algorithm. Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne questioned "the legislative basis for the inability to have human override as part of that process." In response, the department's first assistant secretary, Robert Day, stated, "The no override comes from the fact that that is an objective outcome," though this rationale was met with skepticism from senators.

Liberal senator Paul Scarr had previously raised legal concerns about preventing assessors from overriding algorithm results, noting that the user manual references "rule 81-10 of the Aged Care Rules," but these rules "make no reference whatsoever to overriding assessments." Scarr told Guardian Australia it was "very disturbing" that a user guide could "impose automated decision-making in clearly inappropriate circumstances." The inquiry also heard from a whistleblower who alleged the algorithm often leaves older Australians with inadequate funding or downgrades their existing support.

Department officials admitted that testing of the algorithm was conducted in 2024 and 2025, but only while the human override function was still in place; no testing occurred after its removal. Independent senator David Pocock asked, "What's the point of having someone who's experienced ... and not giving them the ability to actually make a change if they do see an error?" The department responded that data on how often assessors raised concerns about IAT outcomes is not tracked.

Since November, the department has received 834 requests for internal review of IAT outcomes, with each review taking over two months on average. Allman-Payne remarked, "We learned last night that IAT review requests have gone through the roof since November 1, and that the legal and regulatory basis for the automation of classifications and the removal of human oversight is dubious at best. It's clear that removing human override and letting the algorithm rip is having detrimental effects on older people."

Source: www.theguardian.com