The state of the NHS is figuring prominently in most debates in the run up to polling day on July 4. So why isn’t group risk and healthcare occupying some of the limelight?
Sadly, politicians dwell on what they think is likely to win votes, and issues like the taxation treatment of group income protection within salary sacrifice schemes are unlikely to swing the outcomes of marginal seats.
It appears that whichever party forms the new government at the start of July, there are unlikely to be many immediate implications for group health benefits. The little money available will have to go to manifesto priorities clearly visible to the general public.
In any case, those who lobby government on behalf of group risk and healthcare tend to deal more with civil servants than with ministers, and the fact that these civil servants frequently operate on project-based assignments makes it hard to establish long-term relationships.
Furthermore, MPs involved via parliamentary committees usually operate on a cross-party basis, making it largely irrelevant which party is in power.
Time for change
Nick Homer, head of market management, corporate risk at Zurich, says: “A change in government shouldn’t necessarily alter any progress in cross-party committees. These have a shared view of what the problems are, but personnel changes within various roles means that it can take time.”
Even if a new government did want to involve insurers in improving workplace health, the fact that different government departments have little joined up thinking certainly won’t help.
For example, if the Department of Health and Social Care was keen on boosting the role that private medical insurance (PMI) and group risk could play in reducing the strain on the NHS, it still might not easily secure the cooperation of the Treasury to remove P11D liabilities on health products – which hinder such progress being achieved.
Homer continues: “The important message is that insurers are a gateway for SMEs and micro businesses to access important support services and vocational rehab support they would otherwise struggle to access on their own. The insurance proposition as a potential support to government is a completely different one to 10 years ago with all the added-value services now available.
“But the key challenge is, whatever the government’s objectives are, the various government departments don’t seem to be fully aligned strategically.”
Opportunity knocks
Although group risk and healthcare appears destined to go under the radar during this election, those watching BBC Question Time on May 23 may have gained an inkling as to where they could figure in future campaigns.
An audience member declared they’d heard quite enough about what politicians would spend money on, but wanted to know where they would save money instead. Daisy Cooper, health and social care spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, pointed out that investing upstream in the NHS could realise savings in A&E departments.
But, if she had been suitably informed, could she not just as easily have said she would reduce the NHS burden by encouraging businesses to use the added-value features and rehabilitation facilities available on group risk?
This February’s launch of the Occupational Health (OH) Taskforce, chaired by Dame Carol Black, certainly seems timely. Some experts suggest that the term OH has become outdated and could be broadened out to embrace relevant features on group income protection.
Ron Wheatcroft, technical manager at Swiss Re, says: “No-one is really clear whether the term OH actually includes vocational rehabilitation. We’ve asked this question when responding to government but received no response. We feel that OH and rehab should be treated similarly tax-wise but that’s not happening.
“The OH Taskforce review provides an opportunity to position insurance alongside OH, and one of the key things it is tasked with is looking at how to get more OH into the SME sector. This is where group risk does well, as 90 per cent of group income protection covers less than 250 members.”
Group Risk Development (Grid) reports that it has already been working hard to get this Taskforce to engage with the concept of having OH include the likes of EAPs, group income protection and PMI.
Grid spokesperson Katharine Moxham says: “If someone has a toolbox and only uses a screwdriver then they won’t complete all the tasks they need to. So, you need as many tools in the box as possible. Added-value services on group income protection can act as a mini-OH service for SMEs, and much more in addition.”
Moxham also stresses that, thanks to work by Grid and other organisations, recent government papers are starting to show a greater appreciation of what the group risk industry can offer.
She continues: “In my 15 years at Grid we’ve enjoyed some notable successes, but we do seem to be gaining traction more recently, and this can partially be attributable to working with other bodies like the ABI and ILAG that are imparting similar messages. The two most recent papers from the Work and Pensions Select Committee definitely show awareness of added-value features and rehab.”
Industry wins with government felt thin on the ground for many years following the triumph of obtaining the exemption from the 2011 abolition of the default retirement age. But a corner does now seem to have been turned (see box) and this will hopefully become more evident by the time the next General Election is called.
The post Group risk on an electoral roll? appeared first on Corporate Adviser.
