[SPONSORED CONTENT]
Vanessa Sallows, Claims and Governance Director, Legal & General Retail suggests a need to look at value first: assessing Group Income Protection providers on the quality of their vocational rehabilitation and wellbeing support, over price.
It’s our role, as insurers and intermediaries, to help employers understand the value of Group Income Protection (GIP). And that value is as much about the quality of the vocational rehabilitation and wellbeing support – and how that contributes to overall business goals (including DEI) – as it is about the number and value of claims and overall premium.
Why? Because it’s impossible to move on from a discussion centring on price, unless we proactively steer it towards value. Employers don’t know what they don’t know.
In other words, they’re unlikely to ask about the quality of vocational rehabilitation and wellbeing in relation to the impact on overall business outcomes, until data evidencing that impact is presented by insurers and intermediaries. And if they don’t ask, that means that all the amazing clinical and wellbeing expertise at their fingertips might not be used to its full effect; to the detriment of people and business.
It’s our responsibility, as an industry, to be proactive on this.
Workplace absences are at their highest level in over a decade. And mental health issues represent an ever-growing problem for people both in work and out of work – the latter currently a big area of focus for government. In short, the time seems ripe for such a discussion.
So, why is this an equity and inclusion topic?
Creating the conditions for fairness, purpose and belonging – for DEI as a whole – necessitates having in place the ways and means to help people remain and thrive in good work (work that’s beneficial for their health) and get back to good work should sickness or injury strike.
That applies to everyone, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or neurodiversity. DEI through an employee benefits lens, needs to be less about discrete services for discrete populations or discrete health conditions, and more about contributing to creating the conditions for equity and inclusion. In terms of accessible health and wellbeing support that can be tailored to everyone’s needs.
Importantly, in the context of GIP, this is not only about returning to work, it’s about ensuring a return that is sustainable. That necessitates intervening early in an absence to ensure the right support, at the right time, in the right place; ideally provided by a multidisciplinary clinical team that is person-centred and outcomes focused.
At the same time, it’s about maintaining contact with the employee, so they feel valued and a part of something, despite being absent (more on this in the next article in this report). Then, when a return to work is assessed by all parties as appropriate, it’s about working in partnership with the employer, as well as the employee, to help ensure the support and interventions are in place and are proving effective.
All of this should be monitored and measured by insurers. It should become a standard and central part of the conversation with clients. And, ideally, we should get to a stage as an industry where such data can be compared like-for-like, to help intermediaries and employers properly assess providers; on quality, not just price.
Looking beyond price – what’s the driver?
Employee benefits used to be largely viewed as a recruitment tool; a contributor to a strong total reward package and a tick in the Duty of Care box. And, in the case of GIP, peace of mind for both employers and employees in terms of salary replacement during times of long-term sickness or injury. In those days, a focus on price made sense.
Now though, employee benefits also need to be considered in the context of organisational performance, in terms of supporting workforces to be healthy, happy and thriving. This is where a focus on value must take centre stage.
With help from insurers, value can be evidenced, not only through service usage statistics, but also through robust return to work data.
And, to better shape wellbeing strategy as a whole, intermediaries and employers should ideally quantify the impact of wellbeing on productivity, digging deep to understand and address the underpinning factors.
How to assess quality of GIP provision (NB: whether through a DEI lens or not, the assessment should be the same):
- Is the support multidisciplinary and person centred? In other words, does it consider the whole person – physical, emotional, financial and social? Ideally, with mental health viewed as the foundation to everything else. This, as opposed to considering the pillars of wellbeing in siloes.
- Is the insurer guided by a ‘work is beneficial for health’ philosophy? In other words, does it view work as part of the recovery journey? Does it encourage genuinely early intervention? Does it support both employer and employee to ensure sustainable return to work practices? And does it help clients and intermediaries consider how Vocational Rehabilitation and Occupational Health (where an employer has such expertise in place) could – and should – work hand in hand for the benefit of people and business?
- Are services delivered by specialists, as opposed to generalists? For example: immediate access for all to a qualified and experienced clinician via the EAP; specialist mental health and neurology rehabilitation for neurodiverse employees struggling with a mental health condition; specialist mental health consultations for employees’ children; expert elderly care advice and support – often from people with lived experience – for working carers and their dependents; and access to cancer nurses and a multi-specialty team to support employees post cancer treatment.
- Can the insurer provide robust and comprehensive return to work reporting data? This should ideally examine how many employees are returned to work as a result of early intervention / vocational rehabilitation services: before a claim was paid; and once a period of claim payment has been made. Also, what percentage of overall claim notifications this represents.
- Does the insurer provide the tools and training to help intermediaries and clients quantify the impact of wellbeing on productivity? For example, Legal & General’s exclusive partnership with Fruitful Insights helps clients with 100+ employees, at no additional cost, to quantify the impact of impaired wellbeing on productivity and the factors that underpin those losses. Based on the conclusion of the assessment intermediaries and clients are then able to identify priorities, action plans and follow-up assessments to help improve wellbeing and performance.
Download the second edition of the Legal & General Group Protection Chief Medical Officer Report, to find out more about how Group Income Protection can help break down some of the barriers to equity and inclusion.
The post Vanessa Sallows: Breaking down barriers to Equity & Inclusion: Assess Group Income Protection providers on quality of provision over price appeared first on Corporate Adviser.
