Signals for the Benefits Market

In a time when some programs are being scrutinized and potentially scaled back or dropped, this signals something quite important—family-related benefits are still an important component to any company’s benefits package. I think it’s also related to a complex workforce spanning generations.

The workforce is getting younger and Gen Z and millennials constitute a large portion of the workforce now. Family benefits feels like it is becoming a must-have service for companies to attract and retain talent.

Seeing menopause on here is wonderful. For too long, women have been suffering silently in the workforce—brain fog, joint pain, fatigue, and other symptoms that make it hard to bring your whole self to work. With Gen X and older millennials in leadership positions at their companies and with baby boomers remaining in the workplace longer, it was time to look at the data and see that menopause was overlooked for far too long.

There are three main services. Preventive services including screening measures and, in some cases, genomic testing. If an employee understands that they are genetically predisposed to certain cancers, then screening can begin sooner. Even without the genomics piece, recommended screenings can help to catch cancer diagnoses early so that treatment can begin early.

Next are second-opinion services. Cancer has a higher level of misdiagnosis, missed diagnosis, or delayed diagnosis than people are aware of. Ensuring that an employee’s diagnosis is accurate so the correct treatment can begin is very important, so the employer is spending their money in the right way.

Lastly, there are support services. A cancer diagnosis will turn a person’s world upside down. By providing support services for employees with a cancer diagnosis, an employer can create the kind of workplace where an employee feels cared for and supported at the time of diagnosis, throughout treatment, and during their post-treatment journey, which could include return to work or other services if an employee is unable or unwilling to return.

It sometimes surprises me how wellness is still regularly searched, but it demonstrates that employees have come to expect wellness services, therefore employers must offer them.

What’s interesting is that technology is providing a boost to wellness companies. Wellness companies are adding AI guidance and decision support tools to help increase adoption and engagement while also directing employees to personalized recommendations related to wellness metrics such as health risk assessment responses, claims data, and behavioral patterns.

EAP has, in some ways, been almost synonymous with behavioral health even though legacy EAP programs covered much more than just access to behavioral health services. Additionally, the price point for EAP was low enough that many employers did not want to cut them. If you consider how much the workforce has shifted over the last decade, pre-COVID was an employee’s market, and employers were offering more pay and more programs just to get applicants for open jobs. Then COVID hits and everything scales back. Then post-COVID when return to work became a focus, coupled with the destigmatization of behavioral health. It stands to reason that EAP services would not go anywhere and would continue to be towards the top of the benefits priority list.

What’s fascinating is that behavioral health has cracked the top 10 in addition to EAP. I think all of this signals that employers are still trying to solve for the behavioral health component of their workforce, which I think will include adding more non-traditional services in the not-so-distant future.

I think there is a story here which can be viewed as either an opportunity or a wake-up call for those in the TPA, COBRA, and benefit administration space. Services like these are not new to benefits— they are long-standing solutions that have been relied upon for years. Why, then, are they still appearing in the top 10 most searched?

I think the answer may be that benefit consultants and human resource leaders are not necessarily getting all that they want and need from solutions in this space. The technology and the processes are still cumbersome or burdensome, leading to searches for these services.

Perhaps an evolution is needed and those solutions that are willing to listen to their clients, use AI, and consider new ways to meet their needs will be the winners.

It’s intriguing to see where AI in benefits is proliferating versus not yet being embraced. First and foremost, AI can and will fundamentally change how business is done in almost every business vertical. And we’re just now learning how AI can create operational efficiencies to deliver better user experiences.

As it relates to employee benefit firms, I’m seeing a variation of approaches. Some are diving into AI by using outside tools. Some are driving it forward by hiring internal AI experts/ teams and are looking to build their own tools supported at the board level. Some are pumping the brakes while they consider the legal and insurance implications of AI (e.g., potential lawsuits, cyber liability risk). And some are standing on the sidelines watching; they’re looking to be the fast follower versus the early adopter.

Outside of using AI for internal efficiencies and looking more at the vendors and solutions that serve employers, I think they need to use, and some are using, AI to create a better user experience and to improve areas where their solution has been deficient. For example, using AI to drive engagement, to create a personalized recommendation based on employee data, to conduct follow-up to ensure follow through with recommended next steps, to demonstrate value and impact.

I’m not sure this is the future of benefits, but if you consider some of the signals in the market today, then I think every stakeholder needs to consider a consumer approach to benefits.

When individuals buy consumer goods, they generally plan to use them. In benefits today, the employer buys what they think employees want or need and then are displeased when engagement of the solution is low. If we put employees into the buyer position where they actively use their own dollars, even if employer-sponsored, to purchase what they want, I imagine that utilization would go up. Consider individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements; employees are making insurance decisions individually versus being offered group insurance. Thus, a consumer approach to benefits.

This creates both challenges as well as opportunities. The more stakeholders know about each employee-consumer, the better they can serve them with solutions that best meet their needs.