Millions of UK households would face an immediate income shock if illness or injury stopped them working, according to insurer Everywhen, as sickess absence stays well above pre-pandemic levels.
UK workers lost an estimated 148.8 million working days to sickness or injury in 2025, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). That is broadly unchanged from 2024, but 9.8 million days more than in 2019. The sickness absence rate held at 2%, an average of 4.4 days per worker.
At the same time, many households have little to fall back on. Research by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found one in ten UK adults has no cash savings, and a further 21% have less than £1,000. One in four adults has low financial resilience, meaning they have missed payments, are struggling with commitments or lack savings to cope with financial difficulty.
“When one in ten adults has no cash savings and millions more have only a limited amount available, even a relatively short absence from work could quickly become a financial emergency,” said a spokesperson for Everywhen.
Statutory sick pay (SSP) changed in April. It is now paid from the first day of sickness and has been extended to lower earners, but it is still capped at £123.25 a week, or 80% of earnings if lower, for up to 28 weeks.
Everywhen said the reforms had widened access but had not closed the gap between usual earnings and income during a long absence. Some employers pay enhanced sick pay, but others pay only the statutory minimum.
The insurer said people should work out their essential monthly outgoings, check what sick pay their employer provides and calculate how long any savings would last.
Everywhen pointed to short-term income protection, also known as ASU cover, as one way to fill the gap. These policies pay a monthly benefit for a fixed period if someone cannot work because of a covered illness or accident. Depending on the policy, they can also pay out after involuntary redundancy.
That redundancy element sets ASU apart from long-term income protection, which does not cover job loss. The distinction matters because it is widely misunderstood. Research published this week by mutual Shepherds Friendly found that 41% of workers without income protection wrongly believe it covers redundancy. It also found only 16% of full-time workers hold income protection at all.
ASU policies have limits. They typically include a deferred period before payments start and pay out for a limited time. Voluntary redundancy, resignation, dismissal for misconduct, known redundancy situations and certain pre-existing conditions are usually excluded.
For brokers and protection advisers, the persistent level of sickness absence and the thin savings buffer make a clear case for reviewing clients’ income protection, particularly for mortgage holders and those without enhanced employer sick pay.
The difference between ASU and long-term income protection is worth explaining carefully. Clients worried about redundancy may assume income protection will help when it will not, while those relying on ASU may not realise how short its benefit period is. Matching the product to the risk, short-term cover for job loss and short illnesses, or long-term income protection for extended absence, is where advice adds value.
For commercial brokers, the ONS data also strengthens the case for employers to review sick pay and group protection, as absence levels show no sign of returning to pre-pandemic norms.
