Australia’s federal aged-care assessment system is facing renewed scrutiny after a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation found serious problems with the automated tool used to determine the level of home support available to older Australians. The findings, published on 26 October 2026, have raised concerns about fairness, transparency and the ability of qualified professionals to correct decisions that may not reflect an older person’s actual care needs.

The investigation examined the government’s Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), which uses information gathered during assessments to recommend an appropriate level of aged-care funding. The system plays an important role in determining what assistance older people may receive while continuing to live in their own homes.

Commonwealth Ombudsman Iain Anderson found that the algorithm-based process lacked adequate transparency and human oversight. According to the investigation, the system could produce decisions that assessors considered clinically inappropriate, while the legal framework prevented those assessors from directly overriding the algorithm’s recommendations.

This restriction has raised questions about how the government can ensure that individual circumstances are properly considered. Older Australians can have very different care requirements, ranging from help with daily household activities to assistance with mobility, personal care and other essential needs. An assessment that does not adequately reflect those requirements could affect a person’s independence and wellbeing.

The Ombudsman also raised concerns about the limited public information explaining how the algorithm converts assessment information into funding recommendations. Without a clear explanation of the decision-making process, older people and their families may find it difficult to understand why a particular support package has been recommended or how an incorrect outcome can be challenged.

The report identified shortcomings in departmental oversight and quality assurance. It raised concerns about whether assessment providers’ qualifications and clinical skills were being adequately verified and whether contractual quality controls were being consistently enforced. These issues are important because the accuracy of the information entered into an automated system can influence its final recommendation.

The investigation also questioned whether previous consultation and trials had adequately prepared the system for its current form. According to the findings, earlier consultations related to previous versions of the assessment tool and earlier legislative arrangements, rather than fully addressing the framework eventually introduced.

The department had announced a review process in July that allowed assessors to escalate disputed decisions for further consideration. However, the Ombudsman expressed concern about whether this mechanism would provide sufficient protection when an algorithm produced an inappropriate recommendation. The investigation called for a comprehensive review of the relevant legislation and the rules governing the system.

The findings also highlighted the importance of transparency when governments use automated decision-making systems. People affected by these decisions need understandable information about how outcomes are reached, together with meaningful ways to request a review and correct errors.

For older Australians, the issue has practical consequences. Home-care funding can influence access to support services, the ability to remain safely at home and the assistance available to families caring for elderly relatives. A fair assessment process must therefore account for individual circumstances and allow qualified professionals to identify and address mistakes.

The report places renewed pressure on the federal government to examine the system’s legal framework, oversight arrangements and review procedures. Any changes will need to balance consistent assessments with appropriate clinical judgement and accountability.

The investigation does not mean that every decision made through the tool is incorrect. Rather, it identifies structural concerns that could undermine confidence in the process. Greater transparency, stronger quality controls and effective review mechanisms will be central to addressing those concerns and ensuring older Australians receive support that reflects their assessed needs.