# One in Five Older Australians Who Contested AI Home Support Funding Got More After Human Review > Source: > Published: 2026-08-19 17:15:41+00:00 **August 19, 2026**, (Inside AI) — Nearly **one in five** older Australians who challenged an algorithm-determined home support funding allocation received a more favorable outcome after human review, according to data released by the Department of Health and Ageing. The figures, current only through **March 31**, reveal **757 requests** for review of Support at Home funding allocations made under the integrated assessment tool (IAT). Of those, **141** resulted in a change benefiting the older person, including eligibility for more services, a different classification, or a higher priority category. **177 cases** saw no change, **304** were closed, and **135** remain in progress. The IAT, introduced in **November**, is used across aged care to determine eligibility and classification for services. An assessor asks an older person questions about their physical, social, and personal circumstances. An algorithm then uses this data to allocate a level of support. Crucially, the assessor cannot override the algorithmic decision, even if they believe the older person needs a higher level of support. This lack of human oversight has drawn sharp criticism from politicians, advocates, and aged care workers. The commonwealth ombudsman launched an investigation into the tool in **April**, describing it as "cruel" and "inhumane." That investigation is ongoing. Greens senator **Penny Allman-Payne** argues the department's data understates the problem because many older people do not know how to contest a decision. **"We know the integrated assessment tool is under-assessing older people far in excess of what the applications for reassessments would suggest,"** **Penny Allman-Payne, Greens senator** She added that many reassessments fail because the tool is working as designed when it denies adequate care, and that the tool is "systematically incapable of accurately determining need for those with cognitive issues, mental health conditions, and frailty." **Mark Aitken**, a nurse who blew the whistle on the lack of human oversight in February, now runs **Mascotte Aged Care Solutions**, which provides independent guidance for older adults navigating the system. He questioned why a system that claims to be person-centered under the Aged Care Act forces older people through complex and stressful appeal processes. **"Many older people don't have the luxury of time,"** **Mark Aitken, founder, Mascotte Aged Care Solutions** Aitken also asked how many people waiting for a review decision were admitted to hospital or permanent care while hoping to remain at home. Shadow health and aged care minister **Anne Ruston** said review requests had "exploded" since the government put a "faceless algorithm" in charge of care decisions. She claimed requests for reviews have grown six-fold and that too many older Australians are dying while waiting for assessments or reviews. The dispute highlights a broader tension in automated welfare systems: algorithmic consistency versus individual need. The IAT is designed to standardize assessments, but critics say it fails to capture the nuances of frailty, cognitive decline, and mental health conditions. The fact that **141** of **757** contested cases resulted in a more favorable outcome suggests the algorithm may be systematically under-assessing a significant minority of applicants. The department has not provided more recent data on contest rates, and the ombudsman's investigation could lead to changes in how the tool is applied. For now, older Australians and their families face a system where challenging a decision requires time, knowledge, and advocacy that many do not have.