Melbourne man Graham Crossan, who has advanced motor neurone disease (MND), has been denied additional funding for essential home care due to a new algorithm used in Australia’s My Aged Care system. The case, first reported by the ABC, has raised serious concerns among advocates that the automated tool could lead to widespread issues similar to the robodebt scandal.
Graham, aged 80, lives with his wife Gaynor, 79, in Melbourne. His condition has progressed severely over the past seven years. He can no longer walk, eat or speak independently, and relies on a ventilator to breathe and a feeding tube for nutrition. The couple’s daily routine is intensive and demanding. Gaynor spends nearly an hour each morning preparing her husband for the day, and caring for him is a round-the-clock responsibility that has left them largely housebound. They no longer enjoy outings to movies, plays or concerts.
Because Graham is over 65, he is ineligible for support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and instead receives funding via My Aged Care. In November last year, the federal government introduced reforms to the aged care system, including a new assessment process intended to make funding more sustainable and consistent. This involved reassessments for many recipients using the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), an algorithm that determines support levels based on assessor inputs. Importantly, human decision makers cannot override the tool’s output.
The Crossans expected Graham’s reassessment to result in the highest level of at home care, given the severity of his needs. Instead, they received a letter stating that he was not eligible for additional support. Gaynor told the ABC: “I received this letter and it basically told me that after careful consideration, a decision had been made that Graham wasn’t eligible to access additional home support. At first, I just didn’t believe it.”
Previously, their funding covered a minimum of 14 hours of carer assistance per week, just enough to help Graham in and out of bed daily. Rising costs have since reduced that to around nine and a half hours, placing enormous strain on Gaynor, who has injured herself multiple times attempting to move her husband alone. She emphasises the risks to both their safety.
Advocates argue the algorithm fails to account for the complexity and urgency of cases like Graham’s. Geoff Rowe from Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia described the situation as having “the look and feel of the robodebt experience”, noting that more than 100 days into the new system, complaints are rising. He said: “The algorithm is just not picking up the urgency of people’s situation or the complexity of their situation.” Some people with long standing packages have seen their support reduced to unsustainable levels.
Jo Whitehouse from MND Victoria was blunt about the implications for those with progressive neurological conditions: “A 90 day wait can mean the difference between them being alive and being dead.” Challenging an IAT decision requires posting a letter to the System Governor in South Australia within 28 days, with a response expected within 90 days, a timeline advocates say is dangerously slow.
MND Victoria has called for the algorithm to be scrapped or overhauled, and for fast tracking of MND cases, but has received no response from the government.
In a statement to the ABC, a spokesperson for the Minister for Aged Care said the process relies on clinical advice for accurate outcomes and that the government is “actively monitoring the operation of both the assessment and pricing processes and intends to refine them as the system matures.”
Gaynor has written to the System Governor requesting a review, detailing her husband’s needs, but the response only confirmed receipt of the letter without promising action. She described the process as “quite inhumane” and believes the system is unfair to older Australians.
Advocates warn that without urgent changes, more vulnerable older Australians could face inadequate support at home, potentially leading to hospital admissions or unwanted moves into residential care, outcomes that are distressing for individuals and costly for taxpayers. Graham’s story highlights growing fears that reliance on algorithms over human judgement in aged care could repeat past policy failures.
