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.
