COVER roundtable calls for increased recognition of rehabilitation role
The fundamentals of the income protection (IP) policy need to change, according to guests at the latest Cover Think Tank.
The roundtable debate focused on the role of rehabilitation in the protection market and asked whether gains made in the motor and employers' liability markets were being mirrored across the industry, in particular the IP market.
Many round the table said IP is too heavily skewed towards the cash benefit with the rehabilitation angle often ignored or perceived as a means of the insurer wriggling out of the claim. Others, however, expressed concerns about the current focus on rehabilitation.
Colin Snowdon, group risk consultant at Sedgwick IFC, said rehabilitation needs to become an integral part of IP: 'We need a culture change and emphasise early intervention and rehabilitation's role in the contract. Income protection needs to be a more rounded policy. It should replace income, but it should it be sold in a way so that clients see rehabilitation as a positive.'
Barbara Dahill, a managing consultant for Marsh, echoed Snowdon's call for a culture change and put forward a proposition for a product that puts rehabilitation first.
'People need to know that if they are insured it does not necessarily mean they will get a cash payout, but that they will be helped in the most appropriate way. Right now there is some resistance to rehabilitation because people would rather have the cash,' she said.
However, Andrew Pemberton, director of Human Focus Return to Work, is worried about the way rehabilitation is currently being employed by insurers.
'We have a rehabilitation case who is now designated fit for work. The employer does not want them back because the job has been replaced, the insurer is not interested because they are fit for work. We are in a situation when the person will be made redundant 'even though they are fit for work,' he said.
Kate Bleuel, head of health and risk at Towers Perrin, also raised the point that while some corporate clients want to actively help get staff back to work, many are not interested in rehabilitation and, as a result, there is need for more than one type of contract. She cited the example of one client who turned down offers to rehabilitate claimants. The client had a manual-based workforce with many clients leaving work in their 50s with joint and tendon problems. IP was used to replace their income until the pension kicks in at retirement.
She said: 'If you only have one type of policy how are you going to satisfy both needs. We need different policies with different levels of costing.'
