The Greens leader, David Shoebridge, has called on the Australian government to reinstate a human override in the assessment process for aged care funding, following a critical report from the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The 104-page report, released on Monday, highlighted significant flaws in the integrated assessment tool (IAT), an algorithm-driven system used to determine eligibility and funding levels for home support packages for older Australians.

The Ombudsman’s report found that the IAT has produced unfair and arbitrary outcomes, undermining public confidence in aged care services. Under the current system, assessors visit elderly clients, gather information through a questionnaire about their care needs, and input responses into the algorithm, which then calculates the level of funding. However, the report concluded that assessors have no ability to override the algorithm’s decisions when they believe the outcomes do not reflect the client’s actual needs.

Shoebridge emphasized the real-world impact of these findings, stating that many aged care workers are frustrated by the inability to adjust assessments that they know to be inaccurate. “People are tearing their hair out at what’s happening,” he said, adding that the tool has been “unfair from the moment it was conceived.” State health officials had previously flagged concerns, keeping a record of hundreds of cases in which vulnerable older people were under-assessed after algorithmic changes were introduced last November.

In response, Aged Care Minister Sam Rae and Health Minister Mark Butler said the government would carefully consider the Ombudsman’s recommendations and has commissioned an independent review of the IAT’s assessment and prioritization processes. Of the 10 recommendations made, the government accepted six, while two—including the call for a formal legislative amendment to enable human override—were noted but not fully embraced.

Rae noted that a new escalation pathway has been introduced, which allows assessors to refer questionable assessments for review by a delegate, providing an additional level of human oversight. He described this mechanism as aligning with the Ombudsman’s principles by allowing review and potential overturning of decisions deemed unfit. However, Ombudsman Iain Anderson has expressed reservations about the escalation pathway’s effectiveness, emphasizing that assessors must be able to directly amend decisions when clinically inappropriate rather than relying solely on referrals.

An aged care assessor with over 40 years of nursing experience, speaking anonymously, criticized the escalation system, saying it does not adequately address the problem because delegates reviewing the cases have not met the clients. She described the process as time-consuming and emotionally taxing, leading to anxiety and distress among assessors who often feel powerless to correct unfair outcomes. “I’m too scared to ‘accept’ on the algorithm’s decision, but I have no choice,” she said, adding that the emotional burden is driving staff to consider leaving their roles.

Shadow Aged Care Minister Anne Ruston and independent Senator David Pocock both echoed calls for reinstating a proper human override. Ruston dismissed the escalation pathway as a temporary fix, while Pocock criticized the government for resisting measures to remedy the system it introduced. He also noted a concerning finding in the Ombudsman’s report that the department responsible lacked a clear understanding of the legal framework surrounding the IAT.

As the parliament enters its final two sitting weeks, Shoebridge urged the Senate and House of Representatives to act swiftly to implement a human override mechanism. The government’s response remains under scrutiny as calls grow for reforms to ensure fairer assessments for older Australians in need of support.