Health officials have revealed there was no consultation on the final algorithm to assess older Australians to determine what level of funding and home support they should receive.

The controversial Integrated Assessment Tool surveys people about their physical, social, and personal circumstances before calculating what support the person is entitled to.

The classification then cannot be overridden by a human assessor after a decision made by the Albanese Government as part of the 2024-25 Budget process.

Independent Senator David Pocock questioned the tool in Senate Estimates on Tuesday, insisting the department’s roll out was flawed because independent clinicians hadn’t been used to verify the algorithm’s outcomes.

While an independent external organisation looked at the data used to train the algorithm before the system went live, no professional - aged care provider, advocacy group, or expert - audited the actual results.

“You haven’t actually given a whole bunch of outcomes to clinicians who then independently would assess the needs of old Australians (and whether) the algorithm is actually giving the right level of support to keep this old Australian safe at home,” Senator Pocock said.

Shadow Health Minister Anne Ruston also questioned why information about how the algorithm was trained couldn’t be disclosed.

“Is there some reason why I am not able to see the actual decision-making assumptions or directions that are put into the algorithm?,” she said.

While the Department’s secretary Blair Comley couldn’t confirm the final algorithm was clinicians independently validated, he said there were trials involving more than 200,000 assessments undertaken in the design phase.

“Obviously, we also have clinicians sit within the department, not only externally to the department,” Mr Comley said.

“I think people like to create an impression that there’s a massive disconnect between the final algorithm and all the work that was done on the validation process.

“Although it’s quite difficult to say, is the final algorithm 97 per cent the same as the algorithm was tested

“There is a very significant line of sight in terms of the tweaking that goes through with the various points of validation,

“In lots of areas of validation and public policy we continue to move away from kind of endpoint evaluation of the final product to think about what are all the steps on the way through.”

Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne said that creating an algorithm used to assess the home care needs seemed like a move of convenience rather than care.

“Let’s be real, the integrated assessment tool is the decision maker. The human is just inputting data,” she said.

“There is no other area of health care where we say this is appropriate, and yet we’re saying this is ok for older people.

“It seems like a bureaucratic solution for an insufficiency of funding and care problem.”

Senator Pocock then shared a story of an older man from his electorate who needed to be reassessed after using the algorithm.

The man had significant visual impairment but could get to the toilet because he knew the layout of his house well.

“He couldn’t see if things were dirty, he couldn’t see what medications he was taking.

“The algorithm said that he was mobile and continent and only needed a level two but any experienced clinician could see that the man needed a level four.

“So his daughter has now moved in with him, and while he waits for reassessment, she’s using up her long service leave because he’s obviously now at significant risk of injury.”