In October 2026, Vitality released research in which 40% of respondents earning above £100,000 said they would feel financially unprepared if illness stopped them working, while 41% reported having income protection. Published on 29 October, the findings came from an Opinium survey of 2,000 UK adults conducted on 5 to 12 August. The overall sample was nationally representative; the release did not state the high-earner subgroup’s size.

The findings concern respondents’ perceptions and reported cover. They do not audit employer arrangements or measure the likelihood of a claim being accepted. For benefits professionals, the useful next step is therefore a review of how income replacement would work in a defined case. The questions below are editorial suggestions for that review, not findings that the survey established about every high-paid employee.

Map the period before an insured benefit begins

An employer could first put contractual sick pay and any insured waiting period on a single timeline. The timeline should identify who pays at each stage and where a decision depends on policy conditions. This can reveal a communication problem even where the underlying cover is appropriate. A member should be able to distinguish continued salary from a potential insurance payment and understand whom to contact about each.

The review should also ask what happens when the individual changes role, reduces hours or leaves employment. Those events should be checked against the actual employment and policy documents rather than answered from a general benefits description. If different documents appear inconsistent, a named owner should resolve the point with the insurer or adviser before the employer issues a definitive explanation to staff.

Examine the amount that would be replaced

High salary should not be used as a proxy for adequate protection. A benefits team could model an illustrative absence using the applicable insured earnings definition, percentage replacement and monetary limits. The illustration should distinguish contractual terms from assumptions about discretionary remuneration. Where bonus or variable compensation matters, the reviewer should establish how it is treated rather than presuming that all remuneration enters the calculation.

The model should be presented as an explanation of the arrangement, not personal financial advice. Employees have different commitments and preferences, which an employer may neither know nor need to record. A useful communication explains the scheme’s boundaries and directs individuals to appropriate support if they wish to assess their own circumstances.

Check whether the employee can understand the evidence

A concise benefits statement should explain the cover in terms an employee can use during an absence. It could identify the source of the terms, the route for a claim and the person responsible for answering an unresolved question. The statement should avoid turning a possible benefit into an unconditional guarantee. Any simplified example should be checked against the policy that governs the actual entitlement.

For a multinational organisation, the same communication test can be applied locally without suggesting that the UK survey describes all countries. Group standards may identify a desired protection objective, but the local arrangement still needs its own terms and explanation. Comparing those explanations can help a benefits team see where further investigation is needed, rather than assuming that similar benefit names provide similar income replacement.

Give remuneration oversight a practical question

A useful test would ask a reviewer unfamiliar with the scheme to follow the payment timeline using the employee communication alone. Any point requiring an undocumented explanation should return to the benefits team for correction before the communication is relied upon.

A remuneration committee could ask management whether its explanation has been tested against realistic employee scenarios and whether material limits are clearly disclosed. The answer should identify unresolved issues and their owners. This editor recommends starting with the interaction between sick pay and insured benefits. The survey makes that discussion timely, but a supported assessment of the employer’s documents is what can establish whether a change is warranted.

Sources

Vitality | Vitality finds an income-protection gap among UK six-figure earners