"Traditional income protection will remain the right answer for many consumers, but it will not always be the only appropriate route."
- Graham Singleton - National Friendly
National Friendly’s new report, ‘Bruised Britain 2026: Accidents, Advisers & Access’, has found that while advisers overwhelmingly believe in alternatives to traditional income protection (IP), alternative products are often not included in routine protection conversations.
The report examined the impact of accidents and protection, surveying 100 UK advisers alongside 2,000 UK adults.
National Friendly found that 74% of advisers agree that some income protection, even if more limited, is better than no protection. Only 2% view the value of alternative IP products, like accident-only or short-term income protection, as a barrier to recommending it.
In fact, 61% see these products as a solid fallback when traditional IP isn’t possible, and 45% see it as a stepping-stone to full IP.
Yet these alternative products still remain outside most routine protection conversations. The proportion of advisers who say they ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ discuss or recommend each product is:
81% of advisers say they ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ discuss accident-only IP, 74% say the same for accident, sickness and unemployment cover (ASU), 69% for mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI), and 48% for short-term accident and sickness IP.
Even when traditional IP isn’t suitable or available, only half of advisers say they ‘often’ or ‘always’ explore an alternative.
Advisers estimate that 23% of clients, nearly one in four, do not take out any other type of policy to protect their income where traditional IP is not suitable or available.
Barriers to discussing alternative IP options
The report suggests that many of the barriers to discussing alternative IP are practical and structural. The most cited reason given is limited availability or visibility on sourcing system, cited by 31% of advisers, followed by 25% who said a lack of clarity about how the products compare and 18% who cited compliance or network restrictions.
Just 8% of advisers say a lack of confidence around explaining the products holds them back, but a third say they are unfamiliar with the alternative IP products currently available and a further 49% are only ‘fairly familiar’.
24% of advisers cite a lack of client demand as a barrier. Yet, National Friendly says the Bruised Britain consumer study suggests there may be greater consumer openness than advisers perceive.
More than four in ten UK adults, or 44%, would expect to be told about accident-only cover as part of a general IP conversation with an adviser, bank, or comparison service, rising to 48% among Gen Z.
In addition, 15% of UK adults, equivalent to 8.25 million people, say they would consider a more limited or shorter-term form of income protection if traditional IP was unavailable or too expensive.
READ MORE: Beagle Street launches menopause support service
"Advisers have told us clearly that they see the value of alternative income protection," Graham Singleton, chief executive at National Friendly, said.
"Where that does not translate into conversations that include products such as short-term or accident-only income protection, the barriers appear to be practical: advisers cite limited visibility through sourcing systems, difficulty comparing products and, in some cases, network or compliance restrictions.
"The FCA’s final report on the pure protection market, published last month, found that 58% of adults hold no protection and asked the industry to lead the response.
"It noted that the protection gap hits hardest among consumers 'with more complex needs, less stable incomes, lower financial resilience'. Our new Bruised Britain research speaks directly to that gap.
"Traditional income protection will remain the right answer for many consumers, but it will not always be the only appropriate route. Where it is unsuitable, unavailable or unaffordable, the conversation should not automatically end.
"By making alternative solutions easier to understand, access and discuss, the industry can give more clients the opportunity to consider appropriate protection rather than leaving the journey with no cover at all."
Paul Roberts, propositions & distribution director at CIExpert, added: "National Friendly’s findings reinforce the need to broaden the income protection conversation. Consumers want more informed choice, including alternatives when traditional cover is unavailable or unaffordable.
"We champion advice that explores a wider range of outcomes and builds protection portfolios around the percentage of income a client needs to protect, rather than simply a budget.
"Accident-only cover can form an important part of that conversation, provided clients (and advisers) understand its value, its limitations and its role in providing financial resilience."
