The department wants it both ways, forbidding clinical assessors from correcting the IAT’s mistakes and then saying it’s the assessors’ fault if the IAT makes the mistake in the first place. Come on.
Independent federal MP Monique Ryan says the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has “missed the point” by blaming human assessors if the Support at Home algorithmic Integrated Assessment Tool spits out an incorrect or inappropriate needs assessment.
This morning the mainstream media caught up with the news that the IAT is producing needs assessments that are “cruel” and “inhumane” after months of complaints and concerns from clients and providers, and reporting from Health Services Daily and other smaller media outlets.
The IAT uses answers inputted by a human clinical assessor to assign a level of care package to seniors needing the Support at Home program. Since the inception of the new Aged Care Act on 1 November 2025, providers and clients have been warning that the IAT was assigning lower levels of care to people applying for more care as their conditions deteriorate and, in some cases, declining care to those who clearly need it.
This article originally ran on TMR’s sister site, Health Services Daily. TMR readers can sign up for a discounted subscription.
In November it became clear that some time between May and 1 November, the DoHDA had explicitly forbidden clinical assessors from changing decisions made by the IAT, even when they were clearly incorrect or inappropriate.
Related
That situation remains unchanged.
In response to the Guardian’s story last week, the DoHDA made the following response:
“The IAT classification algorithm does not replace assessor input and relies on assessors documenting their advice in the IAT first,” the department spokesperson said.
“Assessors still play a critical role in achieving high-quality assessment outcomes by using their clinical judgment and strong communication and engagement skills to complete the IAT during the assessment.”
In other words, if the IAT gets it wrong, it is the human assessor’s fault.
Dr Ryan was having none of that, saying the government response “misses the point”.
“The input (by the assessor) might be right, but the algorithmic output can be entirely wrong,” she said, pointing out what providers have been telling the department for months.
TMR put the following questions to the department and Minister Butler’s and Minister Rae’s offices:
- The department has essentially blamed the clinical assessors for anything weird the IAT spits out. Is that what the department means?
- Given that the department has expressly forbidden the clinical assessors from over-riding the IAT when it spits out something weird, wouldn’t it be the simplest solution to just let the clinical assessors over-ride the IAT when it gets it blatantly wrong?
- Do Mr Butler and/or Mr Rae have anything to say about this? Because you can’t have it both ways – you can’t blame the humans for making the mistakes and then forbid the humans from correcting the mistakes.
TMR had received no response by our publication deadline.
