Why can't clinicians override inaccurate algorithm decisions?
If the government wants a true indication of the level of feeling in the community, perhaps it should read the thousands of comments on Facebook where discussions about the algorithm, long waitlists, and people dying are growing by the day.
The concept of an Independent Assessment Tool (IAT) didn't emerge out of thin air; it was a crucial recommendation from the Royal Commission into Aged Care. This was confirmed by Minister for Health, Mark Butler, during a press conference following Four Corners' investigation into the aged care algorithm. The IAT, a questionnaire completed by clinicians during the assessment of someone for aged care services, was the topic of the royal commission's recommendation.
In contrast, the algorithm, a secretive formula developed by the government, assigns individuals funding for aged care services based on various factors. However, the algorithm was never endorsed by the royal commission. The frequent mixing of these two elements by the government and Department of Health is a known tactic.
The IAT was evaluated through a rigorous process involving 22,000 individuals, three working groups including clinicians, and a publicly available report detailing its development and trials. On the other hand, the algorithm didn't undergo any live trial before its launch, with no clinicians involved in its final approval and no comprehensive report on its development and testing.
The details of its creation, evaluation and implementation have only come to light through persistent questioning by the Coalition, Greens, and Senator David Pocock in Senate estimates.
According to Professor Kathy Eagar, a leading expert in this field, the government's approach to algorithm development contrasts sharply with her own experience. Her classification algorithm for funding residential care residents involved extensive collaboration with researchers and experts, and her work was published in the Medical Journal of Australia.
In stark contrast, the current algorithm has been developed by a secretive process involving public servants and a consultancy. Professor Eagar highlighted several flaws in the algorithm, including its inability to adequately account for crucial factors like frailty, cognitive problems, mental health, and carer fatigue, which could significantly impact the funding and care an individual receives.
Written by urgent.news from ABC News AU's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
