In a radio interview on ABC Melbourne Drive on 24 March 2026, Minister for Aged Care and Seniors Sam Rae maintained that the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), the algorithm-driven system rolled out in November 2025 to determine in-home aged care funding, “is doing a good job”.
Rae described the tool as part of a “generational reform” that has slashed assessment wait times from up to 10 months under the old system to consistently under one month. He highlighted what he called improved fairness and efficiency, noting that $4 billion in unspent funds from previous over-allocations could now be redirected to those in genuine need.
“We need our assessment system to be fair, we need it to be efficient, and we need it to be accurate,” he told host Ali Moore.
When asked directly about complaints, Rae acknowledged “an ongoing discussion” but pointed to the low volume of formal reviews, 800 requests out of more than 180,000 assessments completed since November, less than half a per cent. He emphasised that anyone unhappy with an outcome can request a review, which is completed within a 90-day maximum window, and that the system allows for regular reassessments to adjust care as needs change.
Yet the interview revealed moments where Rae skirted the personal and systemic issues raised. After Moore played audio from Gaynor, whose husband Graham, living with motor neurone disease, saw his weekly care hours drop from 14 to 9.5 under the new tool, leaving days where she could not get him out of bed unaided, Rae expressed distress and offered to “follow up directly” if details were provided. He then stressed a “key principle of fairness” that budgets “cannot go backwards”, appearing to suggest such a reduction should not have occurred.
When Moore pressed that the same budget now buys less care due to price increases, Rae shifted to explain reforms that capped administrative costs at 10 per cent and removed transport charges from individual blocks of care. “Overall, people should be able to purchase the same level of care through their packages,” he said, a point that contrasted with accounts from families and providers who report otherwise.
Rae repeatedly defended the tool’s design. He explained that a qualified human assessor still conducts the face-to-face or telehealth clinical assessment, spending “many hours” gathering data before it is fed into the IAT. The automated element, he said, is simply the “application of the Aged Care Rules” that must apply equally to everyone, followed by a delegate’s sign-off.
When Moore asked whether an algorithm could truly reflect the unique complexities of each older person’s situation, Rae insisted the clinical input remains human-led and that any suggestion of an override function being removed was based on “misunderstanding”.
This stance sits in tension with reporting from the ABC and accounts from those involved in the system’s development. The ABC revealed that early departmental guidance had told assessors they could override the algorithm’s outcome, but that option was removed by launch day. Clinical assessors, including one who resigned in protest, described the process as feeling like “Russian roulette”, with no ability to adjust scores even when they believed a higher level of care was warranted.
Peter Willcocks, a consumer representative on the government’s advisory panel for the IAT, compared the system to “robo aged care” and argued it was designed to reduce spending.
Lynda Henderson, who served as the Older Persons Advocacy Network representative on the assessment working group that helped shape the original tool, has publicly expressed deep disappointment. Now receiving care under the Support at Home program herself, she says the final version diverged sharply from the flexible, person-centred design the group intended. Assessors can no longer override the algorithm’s classification, she notes, despite the inclusion of detailed clinical notes and assessor comments in the tool.
Public comments on Henderson’s article echoed similar frustrations. Case managers reported clients with documented needs being knocked back, providers said more than a third of upgrade applications were rejected, and families described the process as impersonal and tick-and-flick. One case manager wrote that the system “is not meeting the needs of our ageing community”.
In the interview, Rae noted modest changes made last week to speed up packages for high-priority cases and confirmed urgent cases are still approved within a month. He said he would continue to make refinements “if there are opportunities to improve the system for older people”.
When asked directly whether he planned to adjust the algorithm itself, Rae replied: “I think the Integrated Assessment Tool is doing a good job”.
The minister’s comments come as more than 100,000 people remain on waiting lists for assessments and as calls grow from advocates, including MND Victoria, for faster prioritisation of rapidly progressing conditions.
Minister Rae can keep reciting his half-a-percent statistic and praising the IAT’s “good job.” The rest of Australia can see what he refuses to name: a tool that was sold as the centrepiece of “once-in-a-generation” reform is instead delivering once-in-a-lifetime regret for thousands of older Australians and the people who love them.
He says there’s humans at every point…watching an algorithm decide subtle choices people make to survive, with no change to use their professional skill and accumulated experience to determine real needs. Next step is more residential beds because that’s where its driving our clients.
My husband Ralph was approved for a L3 in September but only allocated a L2 package with a take up date of 11 November. On 4 November I called My Aged Care and asked for an extension which was approved verbally by the officer with a new take up date of 9 December. However on 10 November we signed up with Trilogy care who uploaded the required ACER form into the My Aged Care system on 19/11 with an accepted status on 25/11 following which a budget for the L2 was allocated and services commenced with the Advanced Rehab Centre in Hurstville for Parkinson’s (which my husband suffers from).
Incidentally his package was withdrawn with My Aged Care citing that we had not taken up the package by 11 November. I insisted that I had called on 4/11 and approved for an extension to 9/12 and signed up with the provider accepting the code in the system. They went through the notes of my call of 4/11 and did a systems reset which brought the budget back online to the provider.
Services were paid for, twice weekly for the months of November and December with statements from both Trilogy Care & Advanced Rehab to prove that Ralph had an allocated budget.
Ralph had a service on 16 January 2026 and the provider put the invoice through the system to be paid only to our disarray that it was rejected.
I called My Aged Care again only to be told that his package had been withdrawn because we didn’t take up the package with the uptake date of 11 November.
Their system completely wiped out all of Ralph’s information back to 19 January 2025.
I’ve since made several calls to My Aged Care, Services Australia, OPAN, the Ombudsman for the department of disability and ageing battling for Ralph’s package to be reinstated but to to end in site and told from My Aged Care that he has to go back in the queue and wait for a package to become available.
Ralph has been without services since 16 January.
I’ve spoken several times to My Aged Care managers who have sometimes spoken to me in a condescending tone.
It’s at an investigation level but nobody wants to take responsibility for what’s happened.
There is no cure for Parkinson’s and the disease progresses rapidly. With it, Ralph also suffers from depression, insomnia & anxiety.
Thanks Jakob.
Rae is lying about assessment wait times: perhaps he’s using the median wait times for people admitted to hospital.
Also, the $4m unspent funds have nothing to do with previous “over” assessments. As people were able to roll over unspent funds under HCP, many did so to save up for equipment or because of anticipated need for in-home respite or advancing conditions, e.g . changes in dementia symptoms.
There may also have been unspent funds when needed services were not available because of staffing shortages.
It was the responsibility of providers to monitor unspent funds. In our experience 10% of the total budget was considered reasonable.
The algorithm was mentioned during the IAT development and the committee was assured that assessors could override the results if required.
We were duped and Rae is attempting to push it through despite the evidence in front of him.
The govt reps are using the same tactics they have used for when we exposed the flaws in the star rating system, the REIs and the Maggie Beer fiasco.
Senior Australians are suffering and the stressors directly attributable to trying to work through this ‘not fit for purpose’ act is leading to premature deaths.
Shame on those who pushed this through, shame on those who are aware of the flaws and do nothing about it.
This young man would not have a clue about understanding what aged care is all about. I do not know why anyone expects ANY Minister to truly listen, truly care and truly want to fix the system because that expectation is nothing other than a fairy tale and history proves it. How many people has Sam Rae actually spoken with of those who made one of those 800 complaints? How many people at the coalface has he spoken with to understand the difficulties and shortcomings of the system? I am not a betting person but I would bet the answer would be NONE. It is a very sad day when we can truly say that none of those mouthpieces actually care what comes out of their mouths as long as it conforms with what it s Govt. want it to say which is rarely the truth. Politics is simply that – career politicians who fight for their OWN benefits and not for the citizens who they are supposed to care for. I am very sorry for the few good ones, and they are there, who have to swim in the same swamp.