The federal minister for health, Mark Butler. Photograph: Mick Tsikas\/AAP<\/p>\n
In the email sent on 29 October, three days before the 1 November algorithm rollout, the ministers were told: \u201cThere is a risk that this late change in messaging to assessment organisations may not filter through to assessor behaviour.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn public statements, including responses to media enquiries, the department has regularly indicated that there will be an ability for assessors to override the \u2026 classification algorithm recommendation. In accordance with this position, an override functionality has been built into the relevant systems.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email<\/a><\/p>\n However, the ministers were told the Aged Care Rules 2025 legislation had been drafted in a way that provided \u201cno legal discretion for assessors or assessment delegates to override the recommendation of the algorithm for a SaH classification\u201d.<\/p>\n It meant the manual for using the algorithm and the assessment tool it was part of \u2013 known as the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) \u2013 needed to be updated ahead of the rollout to make it clear to assessors that they could not override outcomes.<\/p>\n \u201cAssessment organisations (including state and territory governments) or individual assessors may criticise this position as being inconsistent with previous government statements,\u201d the email said.<\/p>\n The IAT involves an assessor asking an older person questions about their physical, social and personal circumstances before the algorithm uses this data to determine how much government-funded home support and funding they are eligible to receive.<\/p>\n The algorithmic decision cannot be overridden by the assessor even if they believe the older person has been allocated a lower level of support than needed.<\/p>\n On 24 October an assistant secretary at the department, Rachel Blackwood, wrote to deputy secretary of aged care Greg Pugh about the legal issues that had come to light around allowing assessors to override the algorithm.<\/p>\n The Aged Care Rules 2025 \u201chave been drafted to provide no discretion for assessors or assessment delegates to do anything other than accept the recommendation of the SaH algorithm,\u201d her email said.<\/p>\n Blackwood wrote that the department had \u201cconsistently indicated that assessment delegates would have the discretion to use their clinical judgement to override the recommendation of the SaH algorithm\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is clear that the inclusion of an override has been regarded by many staff \u2026 as a settled position.\u201d<\/p>\n She presented a list of solutions and risks, all of which were redacted in the FoI documents. On 26 October, Pugh responded that the solution he had chosen \u201c\u2026 may not be your preferred approach\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever I am comfortable that this decision is the best available in light of all contextual circumstances, including proximity to 1 November and having a clear and workable pathway to address it,\u201d he wrote. \u201cA big thanks for working through this tricky issue and for providing your frank and open advice.\u201d<\/p>\n On 27 October, Blackwood wrote to Pugh: \u201cWe have been working hard to build credibility with assessment organisations and other stakeholders, and want to avoid doing things that will undermine our working relationship at a critical time.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have a responsibility to provide guidance to delegates to exercise their powers with integrity, accuracy and honesty,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a>Free newsletter |When needed<\/p>\n Sign up to Breaking News Australia<\/p>\n Get the most important news as it breaks<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n Guardian Australia previously reported that people already on support packages who needed reassessment because of increased needs were routinely being recommended for less support by the algorithm. Photograph: The Good Brigade\/Getty Images<\/p>\n It is unclear why the department chose to remove assessor override from the instruction manual, rather than change the legislation to allow override. The department of health did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Within days of the algorithm rollout, Blackwood was emailing other senior department officials to say complaints were coming in from distressed assessors<\/a> that the algorithm was routinely under-assessing vulnerable older Australians, leaving them without adequate support.<\/p>\n In an email to senior department staff sent on 20 November Blackwood wrote; \u201cThe majority of Aged Care Needs Assessment Organisations (including State and Territory Governments) have raised concerns about the inability to override the IAT classification algorithm\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cAssessment organisations have provided details of cases in which assessors believe the algorithm has generated an outcome that does not align with client needs,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n Separate documents released to Guardian Australia <\/a>under FoI show state health officials were keeping logs of hundreds of cases of underassessment, sending these to their federal counterparts<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cApproving classifications and assessment outcomes that they [aged care assessors] do not agree with does not align with their professional ethics and they are concerned this has possible legal impacts,\u201d one of those emails, sent on 14 November, said.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789593977_528_2998.jpg\")
<\/p>\n