In October 2026, AG Insurance published Belgian worker research pointing to a gap between expected sickness income and the protection available during prolonged absence. The insurer reported that 55% of respondents overestimated statutory benefits and 74% feared financial difficulty. Medallia conducted the survey between 16 April and 4 May among 1,000 workers. AG separately estimated that 18% of workers had employer-provided income protection, using Assuralia and Statbel data.

These measures answer different questions. A reported expectation is a perception; the coverage estimate describes a population using separate datasets. Neither proves how an individual household would manage an actual claim. The release nonetheless gives benefits teams a reason to test understanding before a period of sickness makes the issue urgent.

Explain the income path through an absence

An employer can start with an example showing how income changes as an absence progresses. The illustration should distinguish salary continuation, statutory payments and any insured supplement. Each amount needs a clear reference to gross or net income and an explanation of the assumptions used. A percentage of salary can be misleading when a ceiling limits the amount on which it is calculated.

The next step is to match that illustration to the employer’s actual policy. Employees need to know which earnings count, when insured payments begin and how other benefits affect the calculation. Contractual definitions of incapacity and conditions for continued payment deserve plain explanations. A summary should direct employees to the full terms and identify someone who can resolve questions without requiring disclosure to a line manager.

Different earnings levels merit different examples. An employee with higher fixed pay, variable remuneration or an unusual working pattern may face a materially different gap. Benefits teams should avoid publishing a single reassuring replacement ratio as if it applied to everyone. Where an estimate depends on personal tax treatment, the communication should say so and keep an illustrative calculation separate from an entitlement.

Assess protection before changing the benefits budget

The editorial implication is to review income protection alongside other reward spending. This is an assessment question, rather than an instruction to cut an existing benefit. Employees may value immediate, visible rewards differently from protection against an uncertain future event. A survey response about preferences cannot establish what a particular workforce would choose after seeing costs and conditions.

Employers considering a change should compare the exposed income gap with the cost of the proposed cover. Waiting periods, eligibility and maximum insured salary can alter who gains from the purchase. A policy that appears generous in a procurement presentation may leave the highest exposure untouched. Conversely, a longer waiting period may be coherent where salary continuation already covers the initial absence.

For multinational programmes, the Belgian findings should prompt a local review rather than become an assumed global statistic. A common communication format can explain the same sequence in each country, while local specialists validate statutory and contractual details. Pooling or captive arrangements, where relevant, should be assessed against the specific insured benefits and underwriting terms; this survey provides no evidence of their suitability or financial advantage.

Measure whether employees understand their cover

Boards can ask management to demonstrate understanding through a short scenario exercise. Can employees identify who pays during an absence and when the next stage begins? Do they know whom to contact? The exercise should test comprehension without collecting health information or exposing individual worries to supervisors. Comparing results before and after revised communication would help distinguish delivery from learning.