77 per cent of UK employers fund additional health support for individual employees

More than three-quarters of UK employers have directly funded health support for individual employees experiencing illness or injury, demonstrating a willingness to help staff through difficult circumstances.

Research from GRiD, the industry body for the group risk sector, found that 77 per cent of employers have paid for employee support on a case-by-case basis, rather than relying solely on established workplace benefits or insurance arrangements.

The findings, based on a survey of 500 HR decision-makers conducted by Opinium in January 2026, highlight the lengths to which employers are prepared to go to support their workforce.

However, GRiD suggests that while such interventions can make a significant difference to employees’ health and recovery, organisations should consider how to provide this support consistently and sustainably.

Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD, said: “It is often surprising how many employers get caught out when trying to do the right thing. They step in to support employees during difficult circumstances, only to find the illness or injury requires a level of support far beyond what was anticipated. Employers should be recognised for their willingness to help staff at these crucial moments, but funding support on a case-by-case basis can create challenges for both the employee and the business.”

GRiD identified three areas for employers to consider when funding individual health support: managing costs, ensuring consistency across the workforce and accessing appropriate expertise.

Providing treatment, rehabilitation or specialist support can involve significant expenditure, particularly when an employee has a complex or long-term health condition.

Where these costs have not been anticipated or budgeted for, employers may find it difficult to plan their spending on workplace health. Certain forms of employer-funded support may also have P11D tax reporting implications, depending on the circumstances.

Another consideration is how to ensure employees have fair and consistent access to support.

While an employer may be happy to fund treatment for an individual, doing so without clear eligibility criteria or an established policy can make it difficult to respond consistently when other employees require similar assistance.

GRiD also highlights the potential legal implications of inconsistent decision-making, including the risk of discrimination claims.

Beyond financial considerations, employers also need to ensure that employees can access appropriate professional support.

Those recovering from serious illness or injury may benefit from a combination of services, including physical rehabilitation, psychological support and specialist medical advice.

Coordinating these interventions can be complex, particularly for smaller organisations or those without dedicated occupational health resources.

Having established arrangements in place can help employees access appropriate services at the right time, potentially supporting recovery, reducing sickness absence and facilitating a successful return to work.

GRiD suggests that employers can build on their willingness to support staff by adopting a more structured approach to workplace health and wellbeing.

This could include integrating financial protection, preventative healthcare and rehabilitation services into their wider employee benefits and wellbeing strategies.

Group risk benefits, such as employer-sponsored life assurance, income protection and critical illness cover, can form part of this approach.

Depending on the policy, group risk arrangements may also provide access to additional health services, including counselling, physiotherapy, second medical opinions and specialist cancer support.

Such arrangements can help employers offer more consistent support across their workforce, while making it easier to anticipate expenditure and manage health-related costs.

Moxham added: “At first glance, directly funding support for an employee may seem like a good thing to do, but it can create a number of challenges for employers. Costs can escalate rapidly, and maintaining fairness and consistency across the workforce can become difficult.

“Taken together, these challenges highlight that a case-by-case approach is not the most effective route for most organisations. A more structured solution, backed by clear processes, can help ensure employees receive appropriate support, while employers retain control over costs and maintain fairness across their workforce.”