Aged care assessment tool gets an escalation pathway, but not full human override
Since November 2025, an algorithm has had the final say on aged care funding decisions, and assessors can’t override it, even when they disagree. With review requests up nearly 6x and a Senate bill seeking to restore human oversight, here’s what the Integrated Assessment Tool does, and what to do if a classification doesn’t reflect real care needs.
Image: seb_ra
If you or someone in your family has been assessed for Support at Home services since November 2025, you’ve likely come across the Integrated Assessment Tool, or IAT. It decides how much government-funded care an older person receives.
It’s also one of the most contested parts of the aged care reforms.
What the IAT actually does
A trained assessor visits or calls, and gathers detailed information about a person’s health, mobility, and circumstances. That information goes into the IAT, and an algorithm assigns a funding classification.
Here’s what’s caused the uproar: the assessor cannot change that classification, even when their clinical judgment says it’s wrong. Early departmental guidance had promised assessors an override function. It was removed before the tool went live.
Why so many people are asking for a review
Since the IAT became mandatory in November 2025, there have been 989 requests for review of its decisions. In the entire 2024-25 financial year, under the old assessment system, there were 170.
By early June, the department had finalised 606 of those 989 requests. Ninety-two were affirmed, 132 were varied or set aside, 215 were withdrawn, and 102 were found to have no legal standing.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has opened a formal investigation. Twenty-one federal politicians, across party lines, signed an open letter calling for human oversight to be restored. At Senate estimates, it came out that the algorithm was never trialled before rollout, and that providers and consumer advocates weren’t consulted before the override function was removed.
Peter Willcocks, a member of the government’s own aged care advisory panel, has compared the system to Robodebt: clinical assessors can’t give an assessment different to the algorithm’s, even when they disagree with it.
The bill before the Senate
Shadow minister for health and aged care Senator Anne Ruston has introduced the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026. It would let qualified assessors vary an algorithm’s output when their clinical judgment says it’s wrong.
It would also require decision notices to explain how the tool was used, and create a right of reassessment for anyone assessed since November 1, 2025, who believes the algorithm got it wrong.
Federal member for Hinkler David Batt, who backs the bill, put it plainly: “Decisions about aged care belong to the human, not the computer.”
What’s changed since June
On June 3, the government announced a priority assessment pathway for people with motor neurone disease, after the IAT repeatedly failed to recognise urgency in rapidly deteriorating cases. Ruston called the announcement a confession, not a reform.
Rae has maintained the tool works as intended. In March, on ABC Melbourne, he said it’s “doing a good job.” Pressed directly on ABC Radio National about whether a human can override the algorithm’s classification, he didn’t answer directly. What he did say: “An algorithm is just a process.”
More recently, the government has added an escalation pathway for complex cases where the algorithm’s funding decision doesn’t seem to match a person’s actual needs. Assessors can change what goes into the system, but the algorithm still has the final say on funding.
The Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN) has welcomed the move as “a sensible approach,” while pushing for more. OPAN CEO Craig Gear said independent aged care advocates need to be part of the process, and that “several details, including pathways to appeal a decision, need clarification and consultation.” Gear also wants the changes to account for a person’s circumstances changing over time, not just their situation at the point of assessment.
Where it stands now
Ruston’s bill is before the Senate. Its fate depends partly on the crossbench, several of whom have already criticised the IAT publicly, including independent member for Kooyong Dr Monique Ryan, who raised the idea of “robo aged care” in question time back in February.
If you’re navigating an assessment now
If an IAT classification doesn’t reflect your (or a family member’s) actual care needs, you can ask for it to be reviewed.
