Ahead of the release of the Keep Britain Working Review at an event in September of last year, its author, Sir Charlie Mayfield, told Health & Protection that while the report’s findings would be “agnostic” group income protection (GIP) had a role to play in tackling labour market inactivity.
A year on, Vanessa Sallows, claims and clinical development director at Legal & General, revealed GIP was a subject being discussed by the review’s working groups and vanguards.
Ahead of initial recommendations, set to be published at the end of this year, the industry is calling on the government to go further and make its intentions clear on the role of GIP in keeping Britain working.
It also seems clear the role of advisers is essential in ensuring clients understand a benefit that is often misunderstood by employers, while the industry as a whole needs to do more to raise GIP’s profile so customers can truly unlock its value, so that it does not remain the preserve of large corporates.
‘Agnostic’ review
In September 2025, Sir Charlie Mayfield provided a steer on his forthcoming Keep Britain Working Review which would follow a couple of months later.
At that event, Health & Protection asked Mayfield about the role of GIP, and private medical insurance (PMI), in tackling labour market inactivity.
While Mayfield stressed his report would be “agnostic,” he maintained both had a role to play.
Vanguards discussing GIP
L&G’s claims and clinical director Vanessa Sallows, a participant in the Keep Britain Working vanguard phase revealed this phase of the project was moving at a “strong” pace and GIP and particularly vocational rehabilitation have formed part of discussions ahead of best practice guidelines set for the end of this year.
Sallows tells Health & Protection the Review has reinforced what the provider has long believed – that tackling economic inactivity requires a coordinated effort between employers, providers and government, with a greater focus on prevention, early intervention and helping people stay in, or return to work.
“Group income protection has an important role to play in that effort,” Sallows continues.
“That’s why we are working together with other Vanguards to develop and refine standards for both employers and providers in the UK.
“This work is continuing at pace and will help provide greater consistency and clarity across the market, supporting the shared goal of keeping more people in work.
“The Keep Britain Working Review is a driver in the growth of group income protection, particularly as standards are developed and adopted across the UK.”
But according to Nick Homer, head of market management at Zurich, the review is already playing an important role in raising awareness of GIP
“The Keep Britain Working initiative is still at a very early stage,” Homer notes.
“However, it’s already playing an important role in raising awareness of the UK’s workplace health crisis and is highlighting the actions that need to be taken in order to address the issues, which naturally aligns well with the role of group income protection and the support it provides.”
Making intentions clear
But it appears woolly recommendations from the Review would be given short shrift from certain quarters of the adviser community.
Charlie Cousins, director at Engage Health Group, tells Health & Protection: “Government needs to say plainly whether GIP counts as legitimate provision, because the report is vague on it.
“The SME awareness gap has to close as Grid found 86% awareness among large employers but only 45% among micro businesses. And our industry needs to do more to sell this on the numbers.”
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for Grid, maintains the sector as a whole needs to grow that awareness of GIP.
“We need to increase awareness, engagement and adoption, particularly within the SME market,” Moxham says.
“There are misconceptions around costs, and group risk benefits being executive perks whereas, in reality, they are not expensive.
“According to Swiss Re’s Group Watch 2026, the average costs per employee per month are £16 for group life, £27 for GIP and £23 for group critical illness and over 90% of the business we insure is for groups of fewer than 250 employees.
“The average group income protection new claim pay out last year was £29,026 per annum, as opposed to a much higher level which would be the case if these were just executive-level benefits.
“This demonstrates clearly that these benefits are provided for employees at all levels.”
Not making assumptions
The Income Protection Task Force (IPTF) has made great strides in recent years in raising awareness of IP. Indeed, the A in IPAW, the IPTF’s Income Protection Action Week once stood for ‘awareness’.
But the body’s MD, Jo Miller warns it is important not to make any assumptions about the Keep Britain Working Review.
“Regardless of who is in power, it’s important that as an industry we keep making the case for income protection to the government directly and that we don’t assume that any intentions as part of a review or a report are locked in,” Miller says.
Wider role of advisers
For Stuart Lowe, director of risk and protection at Broadway, it’s important advisers make clear the costs of doing nothing.
“Employers are under huge pressure currently, and losing an employee for a long period can be incredibly difficult and expensive,” Lowe says.
“If we can demonstrate how GIP can help employers manage that risk, that will help drive demand. Advisers have a particularly important role here.
“Good advisers know their clients and are often best placed to have that conversation in the context of the employer’s wider people strategy.”
Connection between GIP and inactivity
Though Tony Ford, director at Santé Life, maintains a key difficulty is that this connection is still not properly understood by many employers.
Ford explains: “GIP can be viewed as an expensive or non-essential insurance product, particularly by SMEs, rather than part of a wider workforce health and absence-management strategy.
“Advisers and insurers need to make the proposition easier to understand, using tangible examples and outcome data to demonstrate how it can reduce absence, retain experienced employees and provide access to specialist support.”
David Williams, head of group risk at Everywhen, maintains the link is well understood within the employee benefits and insurance sector, but awareness among employers remains mixed.
“The industry needs to continue sharing evidence of how early intervention, rehabilitation and return-to-work support can help employees remain economically active,” Williams says.
“The adviser’s role is to ensure that these industry messages reach employers and in such a way that they understand the connection between workforce wellbeing, absence management and business performance.”
Varying demand
According to Jason Ellis, distribution director at Aviva Group Protection the strongest demand for GIP currently comes from employers that take a strategic approach to workforce health, wellbeing and employee engagement.
“These organisations are looking for ways to reduce the impact of long-term sickness absence, support employee wellbeing and retain skilled talent.
“More broadly, we’re seeing growing interest from employers that want to maximise the value of their investment across pensions, health and protection benefits and align those investments more closely to workforce objectives.
“Among smaller employers, demand remains more variable as organisations continue to balance affordability challenges and wider cost pressures.
“However, where advisers can clearly demonstrate the connection between employee wellbeing, financial resilience, absence management and business outcomes, engagement remains strong.
“In our experience, employers increasingly want solutions that help them achieve better workforce outcomes rather than simply purchase another employee benefit.”
Strategic economic issue
That strategic approach is reflected in the fact that workplace health is now a strategic economic issue rather than a niche employee benefits issue, according to Clare Lusted, head of product proposition at Unum UK.
“With economic inactivity linked to ill health remaining a significant challenge for employers, government and the wider economy, the direction of travel is towards earlier intervention, prevention and supporting stronger workplace health overall,” Lusted says.
“Group income protection is well aligned with this agenda because it combines financial protection with rehabilitation and support that helps people remain in, or return to, work.
“Continued political focus will be important, as meaningful progress requires collaboration between employers, providers and government.
“This is no longer simply a health conversation but one that impacts workforce resilience and the country’s economic growth as a whole.
“The priority should be helping people stay in work through early intervention, rather than waiting until economic inactivity becomes entrenched making Keep Britain Working not only a public policy ambition, but a business imperative.”
Making GIP compulsory won’t work
The case for GIP is clear then, so why not make it compulsory and auto enrol employees as has been the case with pensions since 2012?
Steve Ellis, joint managing director ‑ corporate services at Prosperis, maintains this will not work, adding it is really difficult to answer the question of what needs to happen to facilitate demand for this important benefit.
“Yes, we are seeing pockets of demand but not really for a whole of workforce solution which we need,” Ellis says.
“People say make it compulsory, that is an impossibility with the current market being around 10% penetrated, just how would our industry and the medical profession cope with a 900% increase?”
Receptive audience
The good news is that advisers are pushing at an open door when it comes to willingness to learn about GIP, says Adam Walsh, corporate benefits consultant – group risk at Titan Wealth Corporate Benefits.
“We are seeing an increase in employers wanting to know more,” Walsh tells Health & Protection.
“Again, taking into account increases in NI, minimum wages, increased costs for PMI, brokers have to be clever and understand budgets to demonstrate costs to clients.
“Using limited payment periods is a prime example, not always going with the average 75%, showing monthly costs instead of annual premiums which can sometimes scare clients, showing individual headcount costs and how cheap this can be is another way.”
Longer term impact
But the costs of long term absence can cut even deeper.
Antonio Ribeiro, head of protection distribution at Canada Life, tells Health & Protection employers who are switched onto GIP’s productivity impact appear to be more concerned with long-term over short-term sickness absence.
“Short-term absence is tolerated and more easily addressed by redistributing work across a team,” Ribeiro says.
“Long-term absence tends to be actively monitored as employers understand they need a solution.
“Employers may not have the resources or capacity to deal with these issues early and take a proactive approach. Many businesses operate with lean resources, particularly smaller organisations, which can limit the time and expertise available to manage absence effectively.
“It’s this need to manage the risk of long-term sickness absence on employee health and workplace productivity where GIP’s early intervention and added value services are so valuable.
“Pointing employees towards help early with their mental health, for example, can be a vital step towards preventing longer-term illness and the increased risk of economic inactivity.”
Clients need help understanding additional benefits
Though there’s also work for advisers to do in explaining its additional benefits.
Christine Husbands, commercial consultant at RedArc, tells Health & Protection: “Advisers need to be clued up on these services and their benefits so they can explain the benefits to employers alongside the financial benefits.
“They need to be able to distinguish between those services providing limited or light touch support and those providing expert professionally led services catering for a wide range of health conditions and severities.”
And while there is still much work for the whole sector to do, demand for GIP only looks set to continue to grow.
Kevin O’Neill, consulting lead – health and protection at Howden Employee Benefits, says: “I think that demand for GIP will continue to increase through the remainder of 2026 and into 2027, due to challenges such as rising long-term sickness absence, skills shortages, recruitment costs, and increasing employer recognition of the value of prevention and early intervention.”
