The Commonwealth Ombudsman has initiated an investigation into the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), an algorithm used to determine funding levels for aged-care support designed to help older Australians remain living independently at home. The move follows widespread criticism that the tool, introduced as part of recent aged-care reforms, is systematically under-assessing the needs of seniors and resulting in reduced or rejected funding.

The controversy centers on changes implemented on November 1, 2025, which removed the ability of human assessors to override the IAT’s automated determinations. Since that date, more than 835 individuals have formally requested reviews of their funding assessments, a significant increase that has drawn the attention of both politicians and advocacy groups. Critics argue that removing human discretion has led to unfair cuts, particularly affecting elderly people with progressive or degenerative health conditions.

Opposition figures have condemned the IAT as “deeply flawed,” asserting that it was implemented without adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable seniors. Senator Anne Ruston characterized the system as a “computerised assessment” process that, in her view, fails to account for the complex realities faced by older Australians. She criticized the government for disregarding evidence suggesting the reforms are causing harm.

Meanwhile, the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae, has maintained that only a small fraction—0.5 percent—of those assessed have sought a review. He emphasized the government’s commitment to monitoring the program and making adjustments in response to emerging issues. Mr. Rae also noted that the review process requires individuals to submit formal written requests.

The introduction of the IAT coincided with the rollout of the Support at Home program, a key component of the government’s broader aged-care reform agenda. However, a recent Senate inquiry has raised questions about the legality of removing human oversight from the assessment process, suggesting that budget considerations, rather than clinical appropriateness, may have driven the change.

The Ombudsman’s office confirmed it received multiple complaints regarding the IAT and has commenced a confidential investigation. A spokesperson indicated that further comments would be made once the inquiry has progressed or concluded.

This development represents a significant challenge to the government’s management of aged-care services at a time when the sector faces intense scrutiny, with cross-party calls emerging for a reconsideration of the current policy framework to ensure adequate support for Australia’s expanding senior population.