Aged Care Minister Sam Rae and Health Minister Mark Butler were urgently briefed three days before the Support at Home reforms began that aged care assessors would not have the legal power to override the algorithm used to determine an older person’s funding classification.
Documents released under freedom of information show the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing had previously indicated to assessment organisations, assessors and the public that an override would be available. An override function had also been built into the relevant systems.
The position changed after departmental officials identified a problem with the Aged Care Rules 2025, which had been drafted without providing assessors or assessment delegates with the legal discretion to override the Support at Home classification algorithm.
An email sent to the two ministers on 29 October 2025, three days before the 1 November rollout, warned that the late change in messaging might not reach assessment organisations and individual assessors.
The email stated that the department had “regularly indicated” in public statements and responses to media enquiries that assessors would be able to override the algorithm’s recommendation. It also noted that an override function had been built into the relevant systems in accordance with that position.
The ministers were then told that the Aged Care Rules 2025 provided “no legal discretion for assessors or assessment delegates to override the recommendation of the algorithm for a SaH classification”.
The assessment manual therefore had to be changed before the rollout to make clear that assessors could not override an algorithmic outcome.
The department acknowledged that assessment organisations and individual assessors could criticise the change because it was inconsistent with previous government statements.
Further correspondence shows the issue had been under discussion among senior officials in the days before the rollout.
On 24 October, assistant secretary Rachel Blackwood wrote to deputy secretary of aged care Greg Pugh about the legal issues surrounding the proposed override.
Blackwood wrote that the Aged Care Rules had been drafted to provide no discretion for assessors or assessment delegates to do anything other than accept the recommendation of the Support at Home algorithm.
She also said the department had “consistently indicated” that assessment delegates would have discretion to use their clinical judgement to override an algorithmic recommendation.
“The inclusion of an override has been regarded by many staff … as a settled position,” Blackwood wrote.
The documents indicate officials considered a number of options, although the relevant details have been redacted from the released material.
On 26 October, Pugh told Blackwood that the approach he had selected “may not be your preferred approach”, but said he was comfortable it was the best available option given the proximity to 1 November and the need for a clear and workable pathway.
Blackwood subsequently raised concerns about the effect of the change on the department’s relationship with assessment organisations, noting that officials had been working to build credibility with those organisations and other stakeholders.
The system subsequently went live with the manual instructing assessors that they could not override the classification algorithm, despite the relevant technical functionality having been built into the system.
The FOI documents also show that concerns about the lack of an override continued after Support at Home commenced.
On 20 November, Blackwood told senior departmental officials that the majority of Aged Care Needs Assessment Organisations, including state and territory governments, had raised concerns about the inability to override the IAT classification algorithm.
She said assessment organisations had provided examples where assessors believed the algorithm had produced an outcome that did not align with the client’s needs.
The documents also record concerns from assessors about approving classifications and assessment outcomes they did not agree with, including concerns about their professional responsibilities and potential legal implications.
The FOI release does not establish precisely what Rae or Butler knew about the absence of an override before the 29 October briefing. It does establish that both ministers received an urgent briefing about the issue three days before the Support at Home rollout, after the department had identified that the legislation did not provide the discretion that had previously been communicated to assessors.
The documents also leave unanswered why the department chose to change its guidance rather than amend the legislation to allow assessors to override the algorithm.
