Australia's ombudsman has begun investigating a new algorithm that assigns home‑care funding. The Integrated Assessment Tool is at the centre of growing anger from assessors and older people.
What the tool does
The Integrated Assessment Tool, or IAT, was made mandatory by the Albanese government last November as part of a package of aged‑care reforms. Assessors use the IAT to question older people about their physical, social and personal circumstances; the answers feed into a classification that determines how much government‑funded home support a person receives.
But the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing quietly added an algorithm that automatically classifies responses and fixes a funding level. Assessors have been told they must accept the IAT’s classification when assigning home support, according to departmental guidance and people who have worked with the system.
Complaints from assessors and recipients
Assessors and advocacy groups have complained en masse. Hundreds of people have contacted advocacy organisations and politicians after reassessments led to lower funding even when a person’s health had worsened. Some recipients who previously held home support packages told advocates they were being classified at a lower level than before — leaving them with less care despite greater need.
The practical effect is clear: people who need help might end up getting less support. That’s partly because the algorithm locks in a classification that assessors can't override, which many assessors say reduces their role to data‑entry.
There have also been hundreds of internal review requests lodged since the IAT began, a process that can take up to 90 days. Some older people say they're too frightened to request a reassessment at all, fearing they will lose funding or be left without essential services.
The ombudsman’s role and powers
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman confirmed it has received complaints and has started an investigation into the use of the IAT. The ombudsman has the statutory power to examine how government agencies administer programs, compel agencies to provide evidence and to make recommendations that can lead to systemic change.
The office has previously investigated major automated‑decision schemes. Its review of the robodebt system — the unlawful, automated welfare debt recovery program — highlighted how automated tools can cause widespread harm if they're poorly designed or lack proper oversight.
That history is important. The robodebt findings remain a cautionary tale for any government deploying automated decision‑making in services that affect vulnerable people.
Voices from advocacy and the sector
Mark Aitken, director of Aged Care Matters and a former aged‑care assessor who raised concerns about the IAT, welcomed the ombudsman’s decision to investigate. He has argued that assessors' inability to override the tool undermines professional judgement and leaves clients worse off.
The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing devised the IAT as part of a broader attempt to standardise assessments across the country. Departmental guidance sets the parameters for how assessors must use the tool, and the algorithmic classification was incorporated into that guidance ahead of the IAT’s launch.
Political implications at home
The issue has already been raised in parliament, with senators questioning the legal basis for preventing assessors from overriding automated classifications, and flagging concerns about automated decision‑making determining access to care. That parliamentary scrutiny presents a political headache for the Albanese government, which had promoted the aged‑care reforms as a major plank of its domestic agenda.
Any recommendation from the ombudsman that the government change how the IAT operates could force policy adjustments, rework administrative processes and, in turn, alter funding allocations. On the other hand, a finding that the system is lawful but flawed would still leave the government to manage public anger and confidence in the welfare of older Australians.
Economic and system pressures
The dispute sits against a backdrop of rising demand for aged care and constrained public budgets.
Governments everywhere are looking for ways to manage costs while attempting to deliver consistent services. Automated tools promise efficiency and standardisation; they can also entrench errors at scale if the underlying design or data is faulty.
For providers and local councils, the IAT’s outcomes can change the volume and type of care people receive. That ripples into rostering, budgeting and service planning. If more people are classified into lower‑funded categories, some community providers could face increased pressure to fill gaps or turn away unmet need.
International attention and governance questions
Governments and watchdogs overseas have been watching how automated decision‑making is governed. The IAT controversy raises broader questions about transparency, the scope for human oversight and legal accountability when algorithms influence public services.
Regulators overseas have started drafting rules for algorithmic governance, including impact assessments, human oversight, and ways to appeal decisions. The ombudsman’s investigation will test how far an administrative rule — in this case, that assessors must accept an algorithm’s classification — can be reconciled with professional judgement and legal safeguards for welfare recipients.
What happens next
The ombudsman conducts investigations in private. It has said it will comment further when the inquiry is complete or substantially progressed. Any findings could include recommendations that require legislative or administrative change; the office can compel agencies to provide evidence during its probe.
For now, assessors, advocates and people who receive home‑care are waiting to see whether the investigation will lead to changes that restore discretion to human assessors, alter the algorithm’s role, or prompt a wider rethink about automated decision‑making in aged care.
Related Articles
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has received complaints and has started an investigation into the use of the Integrated Assessment Tool.
This article was created with AI assistance.
