Media Release

MND data raises questions over Government claim of fairer aged care assessments

Published: 18 August 2026

MND Australia says the Four Corners investigation into Australia's aged care system reinforces serious questions about whether the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) used to determine Support at Home funding is delivering the fair and equitable outcomes the Australian Government says it is designed to provide.

MND Australia has been raising concerns about the IAT for months, with evidence collected through MND State Associations showing people living with the same rapidly progressive and terminal disease receiving vastly different levels of support.

Data collected by MND State Associations from 71 assessments between November 2025 and April 2026 found people living with motor neurone disease (MND) were assigned every level of support – from the Commonwealth Home Support Programme and Level 1, through to the highest Support at Home package, Level 8.

Despite the complex and rapidly changing needs associated with MND, 60 per cent were assessed at Level 4 or below, only 31 per cent received Level 7 or 8, and only around one in five received the highest Level 8 package.

MND Australia CEO Clare Sullivan said those outcomes raise questions that the Government needs to answer.

“The Government has repeatedly told older Australians that this tool is making assessments fairer and more equitable. The evidence that we’re seeing from the MND community raises serious questions about whether that’s actually happening.”

“Of course every person living with MND is different, but MND has a broadly predictable trajectory of increasing disability and care needs. When people with the same rapidly progressive disease are being assessed across virtually the entire funding spectrum, we need to understand why.”

“An algorithm should be a tool to support good clinical decision-making. It should never be the final word on how much care a person receives,” said Ms Sullivan.

MND is a rapidly progressive and terminal neurological disease. People can lose the ability to walk, speak, swallow and ultimately breathe, and their support needs can change dramatically in a matter of weeks or months. Average life expectancy following diagnosis is just 27 months.

This makes accurate assessment and rapid reassessment critical. Yet MND Australia has documented cases where assessments have failed to keep pace with significant deterioration and where assessors have been unable to override the outcome generated by the IAT.

MND Australia is calling for:

• the IAT to form only one component of a holistic assessment process led by clinical expertise, with clear human oversight and the ability to override inappropriate outcomes
• greater transparency about how automated decisions are made, who can overturn them and how people can appeal
• Support at Home funding that reflects genuine clinical need
• ready access to reassessment so support can keep pace with rapidly progressing conditions such as MND
• funding assessments that recognise MND as a rapidly progressive disease and anticipate changing needs, rather than simply capturing a person's needs on one day
• better regulation of aged care provider fees so the value of already inadequate Support at Home packages is not further eroded.

Ms Sullivan said fixing the assessment process is only one part of the reform required.

“The highest Support at Home package is approximately $78,000 a year. By comparison, average NDIS funding for a person living with MND is around $300,000 a year.

“The care someone needs because of MND does not suddenly become less complex when they turn 65.

“We have seen positive changes from government, including prioritising people with MND as urgent for Support at Home funding. We acknowledge those changes. But speed of access only solves part of the problem if the assessment itself results in inadequate funding.

“People living with MND do not have months or years to navigate reviews, appeals and reassessments while their disease progresses.

“The system needs to recognise clinical need, anticipate rapid progression and trust qualified professionals to exercise judgement when an automated tool gets it wrong.

“This is about designing an aged care system around people. Not requiring people to fit an algorithm.”