No legal barrier to human override of aged care algorithm, Senate inquiry hears

Lead

A Senate inquiry has heard that there appears to be no legal barrier preventing a human override of the controversial algorithm used to determine financial support for elderly Australians, despite government assessors currently being banned from doing so. The revelation came during a hearing into the Support at Home reforms, with Department of Health, Disability and Ageing staff confirming that the government has sought advice on how to reinstate the override function.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting on the inquiry and the algorithm's impact has come primarily from Guardian Australia, which has documented multiple complaints and concerns from assessors, older Australians, and politicians. The coverage highlights two key developments: the Senate inquiry's questioning of the legal basis for the lack of human override, and a separate investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into the tool's use. Both threads underscore growing scrutiny of the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), introduced in November as part of aged care reforms.

The two sets of reporting, while from the same outlet, approach the story from slightly different angles. One focuses on the legal questions raised during the Senate inquiry, while the other emphasizes the human impact, including descriptions of the tool as "cruel" and "inhumane" by assessors. Both draw on the same underlying facts: the IAT's implementation, the removal of the override function, and the subsequent complaints.

Key Claims

No legal barrier to override: According to testimony before the Senate inquiry, there appears to be no legal basis for the ban on human override of the IAT algorithm. The department's first assistant secretary, Robert Day, said the no-override policy stems from the fact that the IAT produces "an objective outcome" — if an assessment yields certain scores, it results in a specific classification, with "no discretionary element." However, the IAT user manual includes a section on the override function but does not clearly link any ban on its use to a specific provision of the Aged Care Act.

Government seeking advice on reinstating override: Department of Health, Disability and Ageing staff confirmed to the Senate inquiry that the government has asked for advice on how to reinstate the override function. This was reported by Guardian Australia, citing the hearing on Wednesday night.

Concerns from Liberal senator: Liberal senator Paul Scarr has raised concerns about the legality of preventing assessors from overriding the IAT's outcome. He told the Senate last month that although the user manual "refers to rule 81-10 of the Aged Care Rules," these rules "make no reference whatsoever to overriding assessments." Scarr noted that the rules went before the delegated legislation scrutiny committee, on which he sits, with no suggestion that guidelines preventing overrides would be introduced.

Ombudsman investigation: The Commonwealth Ombudsman has confirmed it has received complaints about and commenced an investigation into the use of the Integrated Assessment Tool. An ombudsman spokesperson stated the investigation is being conducted in private, with further comment only once it has been completed or substantially progressed. This was reported by Guardian Australia.

Impact on older Australians: A whistleblower told Guardian Australia that the algorithm frequently leaves older Australians without adequate funding and care. Additionally, people previously receiving home support packages who required reassessment due to deteriorating health have reported being classified at a lower level than before, resulting in less funding and support despite greater needs. Some have said they are too scared to request a reassessment, and there have been hundreds of requests for internal review, a process that can take up to 90 days.

Perspectives

The government's position, as articulated by department officials, frames the IAT as an objective tool that ensures consistency and removes discretion. The rationale for the no-override policy, according to Robert Day, is that the classification is a direct product of the assessment scores, implying that a human override would undermine this objectivity. This perspective emphasizes the tool's role in standardizing assessments.

Critics, including Senator Scarr and advocacy groups, argue that the lack of human override is both legally questionable and practically harmful. They point to the manual's reference to rules that do not actually support the policy, and to accounts of older Australians receiving less funding despite greater needs. The ombudsman's investigation adds an official layer of scrutiny to these concerns.

As the ombudsman's investigation progresses and the government considers advice on reinstating the override, the debate highlights tensions between algorithmic consistency and human judgment in public service delivery. For now, assessors remain bound by the IAT's classifications, leaving some older Australians in limbo while their cases undergo review.