Hear that? It's the sound of a deadline whooshing by. Dr Monique Ryan has called on aged care minister Sam Rae to restore human oversight of aged care assessments, saying a promised three-month review has still not reached his office.
A three-month deadline for a government-ordered “rapid review” of the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism has expired, with independent MP Monique Ryan telling parliament the review has still not reached aged care minister Sam Rae.
Speaking during second reading debate on aged care legislation yesterday, Dr Ryan said the government had promised a new escalation mechanism allowing outcomes from the controversial Integrated Assessment Tool to be changed in extenuating circumstances.
That change was to be supported by an $18 million rapid review, which the government announced on 3 June and said would provide advice within three months.
“The government announced this change would be supported by a rapid review into the IAT, which the minister promised would be delivered within three months,” Dr Ryan told the Federation Chamber.
“That three-month mark passed last week, and my team has reached out to Minister Rae’s office for an update on his ‘rapid’ review.
“But we’ve been told that the review hasn’t yet landed with his office, and we have no eyes on legislation which would enact the promised escalation option.
“I’m calling on the minister to bring that legislation forward to this house as a matter of urgency.”
The rapid review followed intense scrutiny of the IAT and the absence of a clinician override during senate estimates on 2 June.
The following day, federal health minister Mark Butler and Mr Rae announced priority aged care access for people with motor neurone disease and directed the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to undertake a rapid review of the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism.
The ministers said the department would provide advice to government “within three months on any adjustments needed”.
Mr Rae reiterated the deadline in an ABC Radio National interview on 4 June, saying he was not satisfied with the prioritisation mechanism and had asked the department to provide its findings within three months.
Dr Ryan told parliament yesterday that clinicians using the IAT could still not override the algorithm’s final funding outcome even where their “knowledge, their experience and their judgement tells them that that result is wrong”.
She said almost one in five people who formally contested an IAT result during its first months of operation received higher funding once a human reviewed the decision.
“If a computer is getting it wrong that often, it’s not a rounding error; it’s the system failing people that it exists to serve,” she said.
Related
Dr Ryan also criticised Mr Rae’s response to a written question she submitted in March asking how the IAT weighted functional scores, “needs met” scores, and compounding factors to produce a funding outcome.
She said Mr Rae’s one-sentence response referred her to the 736-page Aged Care Rules, which did not contain the requested detail.
“His response was evasive. It was inadequate,” Dr Ryan said.
Mr Rae spoke after Dr Ryan to close the second-reading debate on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026.
He did not address Dr Ryan’s comments about the IAT, the rapid review, or the proposed escalation mechanism.
Mr Rae said the bill contained “technical but very important components” to strengthen the aged care system, including pricing protections and other amendments as the sector continued its transition.
“This is about listening to people’s experiences of the reform and experiences of the system and ensuring that they continue to deliver a better experience for every older Australian,” he said.
The bill was then read a second time.
HSD reached out to Mr Rae’s office and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, asking when the review was originally due to be completed, what was its current status, and on what date the government now expected the review to be provided to the minister and made public.
We had received no response by our publication deadline.