Occupational sick pay: UK benchmark 2026

About the data

This paper reports how UK employers answered lumi's questions on sick pay and absence. The lumi reward benchmark covers 269 UK organisations across 14 sectors and five size bands. Data was collected in the 2026 H1 collection window. Each figure gives its base (n): the number of organisations that answered that question. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place, so a distribution can add up to 100.1%. Figures here are national. Sector and size comparisons are available to lumi members. See how lumi works for the method.

The legal context

From 6 April 2026, statutory sick pay (SSP) is payable from the first full day of sickness, and the lower earnings limit has been removed. SSP is the lower of £123.25 a week and 80% of normal weekly earnings, for up to 28 weeks.

SSP is set by statute. Occupational sick pay above it is not: whether to pay more, for how long and on what terms is for the employer to decide.

How many UK employers pay more than statutory sick pay?

Organisations were asked: How does your occupational sick pay compare to statutory sick pay (SSP)? (n = 257).

"Statutory sick pay only" is the common answer, at 44.0%. "Combination of enhanced sick pay and SSP" is an alternative, at 38.5%. "Enhanced occupational sick pay (above SSP)" is rare, at 17.5%. Adding the two enhanced answers, 56.0% provide some enhanced sick pay (38.5% + 17.5%).

For an organisation that pays SSP only, pay during sickness is the statutory rate. The direct pay cost of sickness is limited to SSP, and there is no separate scheme to write and maintain. The trade-off falls on the employee: where normal weekly earnings are well above the SSP rate, the gap between normal pay and SSP is income the employee goes without while sick.

The question does not say how enhanced pay and SSP are combined. The combination answer can describe enhanced pay for a set period followed by SSP, or enhanced pay for staff who meet a condition such as length of service, with SSP for others. "Enhanced occupational sick pay (above SSP)" is rare, which describes how often it is chosen, not its quality.

The length of enhanced pay was asked separately: For how many weeks is enhanced occupational sick pay provided? (n = 147). The median is 12 weeks. The 25th percentile is 5 weeks and the 75th percentile is 26 weeks. Answers range from 0 to 52 weeks.

Zero is a recorded answer. The bottom of the range is 0 weeks. The median of 12 weeks is therefore a figure across all respondents, including organisations that provide no enhanced weeks. It is not a median for enhancing organisations alone, which this paper does not report.

The spread between the quartiles, from 5 weeks to 26 weeks, shows that organisations differ widely here. For context, SSP is payable for up to 28 weeks. The length of enhanced pay decides how long an employee on long-term sickness keeps an income above SSP, and when the employer's pay cost falls back to SSP, where SSP is still payable.

Is there a waiting period, and are eligibility rules documented?

The first question on scheme rules asked: Is there a waiting period before occupational sick pay applies? (n = 136). "Not applicable" answers are excluded from this base; 3 organisations answered "Not applicable".

"Yes - up to 3 days" is the common answer, at 66.2%. "No waiting period" is an alternative, at 33.1%. "Yes - more than 3 days" is rare, at 0.7%. In total, 66.9% have a waiting period (66.2% + 0.7%).

A waiting period means occupational sick pay does not cover the first days of an absence. It lowers the cost of short absences and can act as a check on frequent short absence. No waiting period is simpler to explain and treats a one-day absence in the same way as the first day of a long illness. Because SSP is payable from the first full day of sickness, organisations with a waiting period face a design question: what an employee receives before occupational sick pay applies, and how the two sets of rules are explained together.

The second question asked: Are eligibility rules for occupational sick pay clearly defined and documented? (n = 133).

"Partly" is the common answer, at 64.7%. "Yes" is an alternative, at 24.1%. "No" is rare, at 11.3%.

Eligibility rules decide who qualifies for occupational sick pay and on what terms. Rules that are only partly written down leave room for judgement, which can help with an unusual case. They also make it harder to show that similar cases are treated the same way, and harder for an employee to know what they will receive. Fully documented rules give that clarity and make cost easier to forecast, at the price of less discretion. Where rules are not documented, decisions rest on practice and precedent.

Have UK employers reviewed sick pay against the April 2026 SSP reform?

Organisations were asked: Following the April 2026 SSP reform (lower earnings limit and waiting days removed), has occupational sick pay been reviewed against it? (n = 267).

"Reviewing" is the common answer, at 32.6%. "Not reviewed" (29.6%) and "Aligned" (28.8%) are alternatives. "Aligned + enhanced occupational sick pay (OSP)" is rare, at 9.0%. Adding the two aligned answers, 37.8% report that occupational sick pay is aligned with the reform (28.8% + 9.0%).

The three most frequent answers sit close together, and no single answer describes a settled position. "Reviewing" records work in progress at the point the question was answered. "Not reviewed" needs careful reading: the question does not ask whether these schemes differ from the reformed SSP rules. An unreviewed scheme may already be consistent with them, or may still refer to a waiting period or an earnings condition that SSP no longer has.

The reform altered the statutory base on which occupational schemes are built. Where a scheme's rules refer to SSP conditions, a review checks whether those references still work as intended.

How do UK employers manage long absence and occupational health?

The first question here asked: Are extended or repeated occupational sick pay cases reviewed before approval? (n = 250).

"Yes - some cases" is the common answer, at 71.6%. "Yes - all cases" is rare, at 15.2%, and "No" is rare, at 13.2%. In total, 86.8% review at least some extended or repeated cases before approval (71.6% + 15.2%).

Reviewing some cases puts management time where the cost, or the need for support, is higher. It raises the question of what sends a case to review: a number of days, a number of absences, or a manager's judgement. Reviewing all cases gives the same oversight to every case, at a higher cost in administrative time. No review keeps the process light and relies on the scheme rules to control cost and fairness.

The second question asked: Do employees have access to occupational health, and how quickly are referrals usually seen? (n = 267).

"OH without SLA" is the common answer, at 40.4%. Employees in these organisations have access to occupational health (OH), but there is no service level agreement (SLA) on how quickly referrals are seen. "OH SLA over 2 weeks" (23.6%) and "No OH service" (20.2%) are alternatives. "OH SLA within 2 weeks" is rare, at 15.7%.

Adding the answers that include an OH service, 79.7% give employees access to OH (40.4% + 23.6% + 15.7%). 39.3% have an SLA on referral times (23.6% + 15.7%).

OH is one route to advice on long or repeated absence, the cases covered by the review question above. An SLA sets a standard for how quickly a referral is seen; without one, the wait depends on the provider. Where there is no OH service, managers handle long or repeated absence without an employer-provided source of occupational health advice. Referral speed also has a cost side: where enhanced sick pay is paid, a referral seen later falls later in the period of enhanced pay.

What the data means for reward decisions

The data describes connected choices. The basis of pay, the length of any enhancement, the waiting period, the eligibility rules and the controls around long absence interact, and a change to one alters how the others work.

Cost against income protection. SSP only, the common answer, limits the direct pay cost of sickness to the statutory rate and leaves the gap between normal pay and SSP with the employee. Enhanced pay moves part of that gap to the employer, for a period the employer sets and which varies widely between organisations.

Rules against discretion. A short waiting period lowers the cost of short absences, but with SSP payable from the first full day of sickness, occupational and statutory rules then start at different points. Fully documented rules give predictability. Partly documented rules, the common answer, keep room for judgement and make equal treatment harder to show.

Oversight against administration. Reviewing some cases targets management time; reviewing all cases gives uniform oversight at a higher cost in time. Access to OH, and how quickly referrals are seen, decide what advice is available when a case is reviewed.

The reform as an open question. For organisations answering "Reviewing" or "Not reviewed", the April 2026 reform is an open design point.

Questions a reward manager might ask of their own scheme:

• What does an employee receive in the first days of sickness, and do the occupational and statutory rules start at the same point?
• How long does enhanced pay last, and what does the employee receive when it ends?
• Who is eligible for enhanced pay, are those rules written down in full, and would two managers apply them in the same way?
• Which extended or repeated cases go to review, what sends a case there, and who decides?
• How quickly is an employee on long-term absence seen by occupational health, and is there an agreed standard for it?
• Has the scheme been checked against the April 2026 SSP reform, and does it refer to conditions that SSP no longer has?

Related

• How to calculate statutory sick pay under the 2026 rules — the statutory floor, worked step by step.
• How to review your occupational sick pay scheme — what to check after the April 2026 reform.
• Group risk benefits: income protection and life cover — what employers provide when enhanced sick pay ends.
• Wellbeing provision — the wider support sitting alongside sick pay.

Notes

• Base, "Not applicable" handling and rounding as described in "About the data". Bases differ between questions because each figure counts only the organisations that answered that question.
• The waiting-period question excludes "Not applicable" from the base. 3 organisations answered "Not applicable", and the base of 136 excludes them. For every other question in this paper, any "Not applicable" answers sit inside the base.
• The duration question is numeric. It is reported as the median, the 25th and 75th percentiles and the range, in weeks.
• Prevalence words: common is the most frequently chosen answer; alternative is 20% or more but not the most common; rare is under 20%. Combined figures add listed percentages within one question and carry no prevalence word.

Data appendix

Every question on this page, with its base and full distribution, as a spreadsheet: download the CSV.

All national figures used in this paper, as recorded in the lumi reward benchmark (collection window 2026 H1).

How does your occupational sick pay compare to statutory sick pay (SSP)?
Base: 257 organisations

For how many weeks is enhanced occupational sick pay provided?
Base: 147 organisations

Median 12 · 25th percentile 5 · 75th percentile 26 · range 0 to 52 weeks

Is there a waiting period before occupational sick pay applies?
Base: 136 organisations · "Not applicable" excluded from base

Are eligibility rules for occupational sick pay clearly defined and documented?
Base: 133 organisations

Are extended or repeated occupational sick pay cases reviewed before approval?
Base: 250 organisations

Following the April 2026 SSP reform (lower earnings limit and waiting days removed), has occupational sick pay been reviewed against it?
Base: 267 organisations

Do employees have access to occupational health, and how quickly are referrals usually seen?
Base: 267 organisations

See how your organisation compares with other UK employers. Book a call