CIExpert’s Critical Thinking 2026 report, following on from its 2024 study, found that 26% of people completely ruled out critical illness cover because they did not have a mortgage. CIExpert said this reflected the industry narrative that it was rooted in homeownership.
Similarly, with income protection, a quarter of people believe it was just for the self-employed or those without sick pay. Conversely, 19% of respondents thought that having employer sick pay meant they did not need any cover, rising to 27% among Gen Zs. Advisers also came across this assumption, as 49% said clients felt employer sick pay negated the need for income protection.
Despite believing sick pay would be sufficient, only 22% of respondents knew how long their employer’s sick pay would last. However, when the limitations of sick pay and the benefits of income protection were explained, 43% of people said the product felt more relevant, rising to 61% among Gen Z respondents and 64% among millennials.
More clarity needed with protection
CIExpert’s study found that Gen Z and millennial respondents were more receptive to protection when it was explained clearly and made relevant.
Conversations you need to have with landlords before the Renters’ Rights Act
Sponsored by BM Solutions
Some 38% of millennials said they preferred an enhanced critical illness plan after the differences were explained to them. More than half of Gen Zs and millennials said they would consider paying more for advanced added-value services, such as advanced tumour profiling, personalised cancer treatment, clinical trial support and specialist treatment only available internationally.
Regarding income protection, cost appeared to be a barrier, but when it was compared to a pension, 39% of respondents said a policy covering 1-3% of earnings felt reasonable. When it was framed around retirement savings, 59% of Gen Zs and 61% of millennials said it was relevant.
When it was presented as a way to protect income until retirement, 51% of millennials said they were more likely to consider it.
NHS and changing work patterns influence attitudes
NHS waiting times were cited as a main healthcare concern for respondents, named by 36% of all respondents and rising to 45% of boomers. Some 32% said they would be more likely to take out a critical illness cover policy if it paid out once they were on the NHS waiting list, rising to 42% of millennials. CIExpert said this presented a possible opportunity for insurers and advisers to frame the product to clients.
With income protection, 42% of Gen Z expected that their careers would be mixed or non-linear, so 30% said a policy that was portable would be important. CIExpert said this challenged the assumptions people had about income protection, as 45% of advisers said self-employed income uncertainty was a barrier when trying to place suitable cover for clients, 40% said mixed income types and 39% said variable earnings.
Alan Lakey, director at CIExpert, said: “The protection industry has a habit of talking to itself and assuming the world is listening. It isn’t. When we launched Critical Thinking in 2024, we called for a revolution in how the industry thinks about protection.
“Critical Thinking 2026 shows some green shoots of change for the better; almost one in three advisers have changed how they recommend critical illness cover as a direct result of the ‘Single is Best’ campaign – and that matters enormously.”
The research also found that 70% of people had not seen any advertising about critical illness cover or income protection.
Lakey added: “That gap between what we think we’re communicating and what people are actually hearing should be uncomfortable reading for everyone in this market.
“This report is a reality check as much as a celebration. Consumers aren’t rejecting these products – they simply don’t know they exist, or they’ve built up assumptions that nobody has yet challenged. That’s not a consumer problem; it’s an industry problem. What gives me genuine optimism is this: when advisers explain these products clearly – when they connect them to real health anxieties, real income fears, real life – attitudes shift. The evidence is right here. We know what works. The only question now is whether we have the collective will to do it at scale.”
