After months of algorithm-only decisions, aged care leaders get their voice back

A new bill now lets assessors challenge decisions made by aged care’s automated Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT). For CEO Mark O’Brien, it’s a step back toward treating older Australians as individuals, not algorithm outputs.

For almost eight months, a computer program has had the final word on how much support some of Australia’s most vulnerable older people receive. No clinician, no assessor, no family member could overrule it – until now.

The Senate passed the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 on 2 July, restoring a human’s ability to seek review of decisions made by the IAT. The bill passed with the Coalition, the Greens and independent Senator David Pocock combining forces against the government – a sign of how deep the frustration with the algorithm has run, in Parliament and in the sector.

Why human override matters for aged care assessments

For Mark O’Brien, a CEO with more than two decades of experience across dental, aged care, allied health and education, the change addresses something he’s watched play out in real client cases.

“The needs of older people applying for a Support at Home (SaH) assessment are often very complex, depending on their circumstances,” O’Brien said. “Often you are talking about some of the most vulnerable members of society. Without the human override option, some people were being under-assessed, meaning they were left without adequate care.”

“This change could make an incredible difference for older people struggling with the system, and in some cases even save lives.”

Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN) CEO Craig Gear has spotlighted the gap between the tool’s design and its reality. It’s in this gap where many older people slip through the cracks – and the flow on effect not only blows out wait times for care, but it also erodes trust and burns out assessors. 

The government’s own fix, and what it leaves unresolved

The government had resisted restoring override powers until the day of the Senate vote, when Minister for Aged Care Sam Rae announced a separate measure allowing assessment organisations to escalate contested outcomes. 

Senator Pocock has publicly described that announcement as light on detail, warning it could amount to little more than a new escalation pathway, rather than genuine clinical override. The IAT remains under investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Will this change reduce Support at Home wait times?

O’Brien is doubtful the changes will move quickly enough for people currently stuck in the system. 

“These changes are unlikely to have a significant impact on care wait times, given that the tool will only allow for human override in a small number of circumstances,” he said. 

“Thousands of Australians have been impacted by incorrect assessments. If only the outlier cases are escalated… there will still be a large number of seniors who are desperately waiting for support.”

Stepping in while the system catches up

In the meantime, providers like O’Brien’s have been stepping in directly. “We are currently providing private home care services to many clients who are on the Support at Home waitlist, to ensure they can gain access to urgently needed services,” he shared. “In certain cases, we have advocated for our clients to have an urgent reassessment due to rapid changes in their support needs.”

For O’Brien, the override case is really about something more fundamental than one piece of legislation. 

“Every older person deserves the right to have a human make a decision about their care needs,” he reinforces. “Given the constraints of the current tool and workforce, every older person would benefit from someone who can advocate for them and ensure that they are not left at risk.”

A message for the aged care sector

His message to the sector is a simple one. 

“Staff expertise, clinical reasoning and human oversight are essential to ensuring older Australians’ rights are upheld. When it comes to making critical decisions about the care of our most vulnerable members of society, technology advancements and automations should enhance human expertise, not replace it.”