"The protection industry has a habit of talking to itself and assuming the world is listening. It isn't."
- Alan Lakey - CIExpert
CIExpert has today published ‘Critical Thinking 2026’, a research study into the UK’s critical illness (CI) and income protection (IP) markets.
The report, headline sponsored by Royal London and Guardian, and supported by Aviva, Legal & General, Vitality Life and Zurich, draws on the views of advisers and 10,000 consumers.
Following on from the inaugural report in 2024, the new report’s headline finding is that around seven in ten consumers have not seen or heard anything about income protection or critical illness cover (CIC) in the last year. This means that the situation has barely shifted since the 2024 report, when 70% reported no exposure to CIC advertising.
The report also found that where consumers do have views on these products, their understanding is frequently shaped by false assumptions rather than knowledge. Over a quarter (26%) rule out CIC simply because they do not have a mortgage - a figure that points to an industry narrative still rooted in home ownership despite the product’s broader relevance.
Furthermore, only 8% of all consumers say they would use a payout to repay a mortgage; the vast majority would use it for income replacement, everyday expenses or health-related costs.
In terms of income protection, a quarter of consumers believe IP is only for people who are self-employed or have no sick pay, while on the flipside, 19% think having employer sick pay means they do not need cover at all, rising to 27% among Gen Z.
At the same time, only a fifth (22%) know how long their employer sick pay would last - yet when the limitations of sick pay and the role of IP are clearly explained, 43% say the product feels more relevant, rising to 61% of Gen Z and 64% of Millennials.
In fact, a recurring theme in 'Critical Thinking 2026' is that Gen Z and Millennials are indeed receptive to protection when it is framed clearly and relevantly.
Among Millennials, 38% say they would prefer an enhanced critical illness plan when given a clear explanation of the differences, and over half of Gen Z and Millennials are open to paying more for advanced added value services, including access to advanced tumour profiling and personalised cancer treatment, clinical trial support, and specialist treatment only available overseas.
On income protection, cost is frequently cited as a barrier, but attitudes change when it’s positioned like a pension, so as a small percentage of income, with 39% saying 1–3% of earnings feels reasonable for income protection. When IP is framed around retirement savings, relevance rises to 59% of Gen Z and 61% of Millennials, and when IP is presented as protecting income until retirement, 51% of Millennials say they would be more likely to consider it.
42% of Gen Z now expect a mixed or non-linear career, and 30% say portability of cover between jobs would be important. This challenges the traditional employment assumptions built into many IP models, with advisers identifying self-employed income uncertainty (cited by 45%), mixed income types (40%) and variable earnings (39%) as the most common practical barriers to placing suitable cover.
A significant shift in the report is that waiting times for NHS treatment now rank as the leading healthcare concern among UK consumers, cited by 36% overall and rising to 45% of Boomers. One in three consumers say they would be more likely to buy CIC if a policy paid out once placed on an NHS waiting list, rising to 42% of Millennials.
"The protection industry has a habit of talking to itself and assuming the world is listening. It isn't," Alan Lakey, director, CIExpert, said. "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 CIC as a direct result of the 'Single is Best' campaign - and that matters enormously.
"But beyond our own bubble, seven in ten consumers have not seen or heard a thing about critical illness cover or income protection in the last year. 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."
Fi Wynn, head of protection proposition at Royal London, commented: "The findings of this report make for stark reading, too many people miss out on a financial safety net simply because they don’t understand what’s available or how it can help them. We need to help cut through the confusion and ensure more consumers get the support they need when they need it most.
"Genuine progress depends on collaboration, clear communication, and tackling outdated assumptions. As an industry, we have a collective purpose to ensure that protection insurance becomes relevant and accessible to all."
