Algorithm-based tool for home support funding is 'cruel' and 'inhumane'

7 days ago

Aged care clinicians criticize the algorithm-based assessment tool (IAT) for being 'cruel' and 'inhumane', stripping away clinical expertise.
The IAT determines federal home support funding packages, often overriding human assessors' judgments, leading to inadequate support for elderly individuals.
Mark Aitken, a nurse with 39 years of experience, quit his job due to the tool's inflexibility and inaccuracies in classifying needs.
Assessors are rarely allowed to override the IAT's decisions, even when they disagree with the classification of need.
Examples include misclassifications: one elderly woman with good support was deemed high priority, while another with advanced dementia was classified as low need.
The IAT lacks transparency in how it weighs risk, need, or complexity, leaving assessors and the public in the dark.
Independent MP Dr Monique Ryan criticizes the IAT for removing clinical judgment and nuance, calling it 'robo-aged-care'.
Concerns about the IAT mirror past controversies like robodebt, with fears of unethical outcomes and lack of accountability.
Aged care assessors have resorted to 'gaming' the system by inputting false information to secure necessary care levels.
A spokesperson defended the IAT, stating it provides a 'holistic view' of an older person's needs, but critics remain unconvinced.

Hasty Briefsbeta