MGC director Monica Garcia (pictured) looks at how we can cut workplace absence due to illness and injury.
We are starting the last quarter of 2026, with many recurring themes and efforts to address sickness absence challenges in the UK.
I have been reflecting on some aspects of the income protection (IP) proposition which I hope can give some food for thought for the ongoing shaping of solutions and on the value that IP products offer to society.
Currently, IP propositions are focusing on well-integrated products, offering customers tailored support to optimise recovery and sustained return-to-work, whilst mitigating the income shock customers experience through illness or injury1.
This also feels a timely topic in our sector after another successful income protection awareness week campaign during September.
The challenge: fear-avoidance
A report by the Commission for Healthier Working Lives2 outlined the challenges of the current welfare approach.
There is a binary assessment of work capability, in which fear of losing the safety net of financial support can prevent attempts to return to work.
They mentioned that the work capability assessment, focuses “narrowly on what they cannot do”, rather than on “what people could do with the right support”.
The report describes significant fear-avoidance as one of the key challenges. It quotes feedback from survey participants, where almost three-quarters of people receiving work-related disability benefits reported that fear of losing them was a significant barrier to work.
If the individual relapses or if the primary health condition is fluctuating in nature, then the stakes are too high to risk losing the financial safety net.
I noted that since April 2026, the right to try guarantee3 means attempting work does not, on its own, trigger a benefit reassessment, and I’ll be interested to hear about the impact of this change.
The report also highlights some known stark figures. More than 300,000 people a year drop out of work with a work-limiting health condition, and between 2014 and 2023, “only 3%” of those out of work for more than 12 months moved into employment each year.
In contrast, the protection sector published encouraging figures earlier in the year, highlighting the role of health and work-focused interventions (vocational rehabilitation).
The most recent claims report by the Group Risk Development (Grid) mentioned that 5,590 employees were helped back to work in 2025, and that 3,920 returned before making a claim and 1,670 after4.
In the retail space, the ABI claims data published in June 2026, mentioned 7,600 people returned to work with the support of payouts and insurer-provided health services5.
Addressing the fear-avoidance challenge within IP
So how has income protection looked at resolving similar challenges regarding natural worries and concerns that reinforce fear-avoidance in relation to return-to-work attempts, particularly for individuals who have been absent for a prolonged period of time and for those whose health condition is fluctuating, with or without co-morbidities.
Whilst a lot of the narrative has focused on the role of Early Intervention initiatives to support customers as early as possible with evidence-based interventions that include return-to-work-focused support (vocational rehabilitation)6, it is the whole IP proposition and IP product features that play a key role in incentivising a safe and sustained return to address the fear of losing the safety net the IP product provides.
Two main IP product features with variations across the market include:
Proportionate benefit payments and linked periods
There are many variations across market products to incentivise graduated returns.
Consider a customer who is now contemplating a return to work but is understandably concerned about their ability to increase their work capacity to full-time and maintain it long-term.
“What will happen to my IP benefit payments if I fail?” or what will happen to my IP benefit during my graduated return, as I’m only capable of engaging in part-time work and I don’t know when I will be able to increase my tolerance for full-time work?
These are common scenarios in both the GIP and IIP sectors.
In both scenarios, claims assessors play a key role in communicating and reassuring the customer with the specific IP product features of how proportional benefits are deployed, for how long and under what terms.
Equally, linked periods where the IP benefit is reinstated without a full reassessment are hugely reassuring, as the deferred period does not have to be served. The industry commonly has linked period variations of between six to 12 months.
What we need to be mindful of?
As the disability insurance risk continues to evolve, we need to be mindful of more complex health presentations at the point of claim, fluctuating conditions and linked periods.
For example, some fluctuating health conditions may be prone to relapse, affecting sustained work capacity.
How much flexibility do we have in existing product features? And is a six-month linked period enough for a work trial in a complex case?
Some immediate gains to support the claim journey
Communication of IP features, and reassurance throughout the claim journey is hugely important and needs to be completed as early as possible.
These early reassurances have the potential to mitigate initial fear-avoidance concerns and promote engagement in vocational rehabilitation services. The combined use of technology with human interaction for effective communication seems to be the way forward, with precious time-saving opportunities through more effective processes.
Expert claims assessor resource can be then deployed where human judgement and communication skills are required in the claim journey.
Equally, advisers are uniquely placed to guide customers on the right IP product depending on individual circumstances.
Take away
While cohorts differ between insured and non-insured populations, the challenges around the prevalence of conditions affecting work capacity and the psychosocial aspects that influence return to work are similar, with fear-avoidance as common ground and a natural response.
I hope some of the IP proposition features discussed provide food for thought as welfare reform continues, including the recommendation for a vocational rehabilitation benefit.
References
- Building a safety net: A guide to income protection (2021). Chartered Insurance Institute and the Personal Finance Society, in collaboration with the Professionalism Workstream of the Access to Insurance Working Group. https://www.thepfs.org/learning/learning-content-hub/articles/building-a-safety-net-a-guide-to-income-protection/8ab3c4d9-7f3b-4635-821b-133a5669fe2cBuilding a safety net
- Rocks, C., Finch, D., & Atwell, S. (2025). Action for healthier working lives: Final report of the Commission for Healthier Working Lives (S. Jost, Ed.). The Health Foundation. https://www.health.org.uk/commission-for-healthier-working-lives
- Department for Work and Pensions (2026). Right to Try: summary. In force 30 April 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-try/right-to-try-summary
- Group Risk Development (2026). Sixty-eight per cent of employees who were newly absent returned to work under group income protection benefits in 2025 [Press release], 16 June 2026. https://grouprisk.org.uk/2026/06/16/sixty-eight-per-cent-of-employees-who-were-newly-absent-returned-to-work-under-group-income-protection-benefits-in-2025/
- Association of British Insurers (ABI) (2026). Protection insurers pay out £7.84 billion to help customers safeguard their finances. 29 June 2026.
- Vocational Rehabilitation Association UK (VRA). https://vrassociationuk.com
AI disclosure: This article was written by me. I used an AI assistant to aid research of published resources, to help brainstorm the title of the article and to review the draft.
