The Broken Promise

Digital-first health tools are positioned as the scalable, cost-efficient solution, but over time neither of those claims have proven to be true. According to the Business Group on Health Large Employer Healthcare Strategy Survey, employers average 4 – 9 behavioral health vendors, making clear program communications difficult and siloed. More tools CAN mean more access, but the unfortunate reality is the mass acquisition of apps leads to confusion, a disconnected spend, and employees who do not know how to access support.

This rapid expansion of digital tools only accelerated when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional healthcare delivery. Lockdowns, overwhelmed clinics, and a surge in anxiety, depression, and substance use created urgent demand for remote care options. In response, a wave of teletherapy platforms, mental health apps, remote monitoring tools, and AI-driven screening solutions hit the app store. The pandemic-era boom in digital behavioral health innovation both expanded the toolbox for patients and providers and intensified the challenge of distinguishing meaningful value from digital noise.

The speed of that expansion also exposed a growing challenge: not all solutions were built with strong clinical evidence, and many were never fully integrated into broader care systems. In 2024, 49.2% of adults with mental illness reported not receiving treatment because they did not know how or where to get treatment. That statistic is striking, especially in a world where employer investment in behavioral health solutions only continues to grow. When someone is already overwhelmed, anxious, grieving, or burned out, being asked to research providers, compare coverage options, interpret benefits language, navigate a maze of apps, and determine the right level of care can feel insurmountable. Too often, that friction leads to delay. And delay can lead to worsening outcomes, higher costs, and deeper disengagement. The bottom line? More doesn’t necessarily mean better.

The Value Gap

Most behavioral health conversations focus on access, experience, or innovation. Far fewer address the question employers increasingly care about: Are we paying more—and getting less certainty in return?

That’s the Value Gap in today’s behavioral health market.

Defining the Value Gap  

The Value Gap exists when employers pay premium prices for behavioral health solutions that:

• Promise ROI but struggle to demonstrate cost containment
• Drive utilization that increases medical spend, not reduce it
• Deliver narrow interventions without addressing root drivers of demand
• Rely on engagement assumptions that don’t consistently materialize at scale

In short: price and value have become decoupled. Digital-first behavioral health entered the market with a compelling promise: More technology = more access = lower costs. But structurally, many digital-first models work against that promise. In fact, we know that introducing new behavioral health solutions with more engaging digital entry points can lead to an initial uptick in engagement. The promise was the longer-term ROI once the initial utilization was “right sized.”  
The promise of higher tech is not automatically translating into lower total cost of care.

In every other part of the healthcare delivery system, we have learned that more utilization does not equate automatically to better care only to higher costs.  As with all healthcare, employer sponsored mental health solutions must deliver the right care, at the right time with the right outcome at the right value.

The Solution: Complete behavioral health

Employees are people with overlapping and compounding concerns that rarely happen one issue at a time. Take Stacie, for example, a working single mom on a tight budget. She’s pre-diabetic and has a defiant teen with plummeting grades. A point-solution may address Stacie’s stress or anxiety related to her situation, but can’t support the whole picture. Real well-being requires a complete, connected approach that goes beyond access alone. One that meets people where they truly are, understands the full range of life’s pressures, and supports both emotional and practical needs in a seamless way.

A comprehensive model of behavioral health transforms the employee experience by eliminating barriers, reducing confusion, and providing timely, human-centered care. While this can include digital experiences, it is not digital only. Organizations that embrace this kind of approach not only support healthier, more resilient individuals but also strengthen engagement, productivity, and long-term success. A comprehensive, integrated approach to employee well-being also creates a more consistent, equitable experience for workers across an organization – whether they be in the U.S. or global, remote or in-office, hourly or salary, and across various generations and other demographics.

Human First and Human Centered

Technology is only one component of a comprehensive care strategy. ComPsych’s comprehensive model continues to prioritize in-person counseling and provider-based care through its extensive global clinician network, recognizing that many individuals benefit most from face-to-face therapeutic relationships, particularly for complex or higher-acuity behavioral health needs. Even in 2026, 60% of patients actually prefer in-person care. Digital tools such as virtual therapy, self-guided resources, and app-based support are important touchpoints for care, however, by integrating digital options alongside traditional counseling and care management, we expand access and convenience without sacrificing clinical depth. Our approach looks at the whole person within the full context of their life, addressing root causes rather than isolated symptoms and ensuring support extends beyond the individual employee to the broader household when needed. This approach includes anything from financial and legal concerns to housing support and caregiving needs and ensures that technology enhances, rather than replaces, the human-centered foundation of behavioral healthcare.

By recognizing that well-being doesn’t exist in isolation and committing to solutions that are integrated, personalized, and proactive, employers can better navigate evolving workforce needs and foster environments where people and businesses thrive together.

The post The Value Gap in Behavioral Healthcare appeared first on ComPsych.

When stress levels rise across an organization, Human Resource leaders and managers often become the first line of responders. The quality of the support shown to employees can make or break how a team weathers the storm. 

“When a crisis strikes, HR teams become the first line of support. It’s important for HR leaders to know they don’t need to have all the answers; they just need the right framework to guide their response with empathy and a clear understanding of what matters in the moment,” says Kenny Zuckerberg, Vice President of Learning and Organizational Excellence at ComPsych.  

Understanding How Stress Shows Up at Work 

Before managers can respond effectively to employee stress, they need to recognize how the different ways this can manifest in the workplace. There are typically four key ways stress shows up: 

• Physically. Employees may begin complaining of headaches, back pain, fatigue, or other physical ailments. This isn’t coincidence — the mind-body connection is real, and chronic stress has documented physical effects. 

• Emotionally. Expect to see more emotional volatility: tearfulness, irritability, angry outbursts, or a general sense of being overwhelmed. 

• Cognitively. Stressed employees often struggle to focus, retain information, meet deadlines, or complete tasks that would normally be routine. 

• Behaviorally. In more serious cases, stress can manifest in changes in behavior — increased absenteeism, withdrawal from colleagues, or in some instances, an uptick in risky behaviors like substance use or gambling. 

Recognizing these signs early gives leaders the chance to respond proactively. 

Know Your Role  

Here’s one of the most critical boundaries in crisis leadership: managers are not therapists, doctors, or financial advisors. When we care about the people we work with, the instinct to “fix” their problems is natural. But overstepping into those roles doesn’t just risk causing harm; it puts an unsustainable emotional burden on leaders themselves. 

Your role as a manager during times of stress is to be: 

• An empathetic leader who sees the humanity in your team members 

• A manager of performance who continues to hold fair, consistent standards 

• A knowledgeable resource who can connect employees to the right support whether that’s an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), mental health benefits, HR, or other company resources 

The role of being a trusted resource for employees is critical during times of crisis, and it becomes far more effective when leaders are clear about where their responsibilities begin and end. 

Language Matters: “I” Statements vs. “You” Statements 

The words we choose in difficult conversations can either open a dialogue or shut it down entirely. One of the most effective communication adjustments a leader can make is shifting from “You” language to “I” language. 

“You” statements put people on the defensive even if they’re accurate. “I” statements, on the other hand, keep the conversation focused on impact and observation rather than accusation. 

Consider these examples: 

Instead of this…Try this… 

• “You don’t respond well when people give you feedback.” Vs “I’m concerned about the responses I’ve gotten when I’ve given you feedback.” 

• “Your tone of voice is inappropriate for a professional environment.” Vs “I think it’s important to maintain a professional tone even when you’re upset.” 

• “Your negative attitude is affecting the whole workplace.” Vs “I’m concerned about the effect that some of your statements are having on the workplace.” 

The underlying message doesn’t change — but the delivery shifts from confrontational to collaborative, significantly increasing the chance that the employee actually hears it. 

Focus on Facts, Not Judgments 

In the same vein, stressed and heightened conversations benefit from grounding in observable facts rather than subjective judgments. Judgment-based feedback (“Your work has been sloppy lately”) activates defensiveness. Fact-based feedback (“There have been several typos in the documents you’ve submitted this month — I’ve printed them out and circled the errors”) opens a path forward. 

Facts are neutral. Judgments are not. When leading difficult conversations during high-stress periods, the more you can anchor your observations in specific, documented behaviors and outcomes, the more productive the exchange will be. 

Empathy and Validation: The Core of Crisis Conversations 

When addressing performance issues, it’s common for employees to pivot to personal struggles. A manager who isn’t prepared for this can either over-engage (stepping into therapist territory) or shut down (making the employee feel dismissed). Neither outcome is helpful. 

The right response involves two things working together: 

Empathy: genuinely trying to understand what the other person is experiencing: “I can see this is a very difficult situation for you.” 

Validation: affirming that their response is understandable and human: “It is completely normal to feel this way in times like these.” 

Once you’ve offered empathy and validation, you can gently redirect the conversation to the performance or behavioral concern you originally needed to address. The employee doesn’t need you to solve their personal problems; they need to feel seen before they can engage. 

Overcoming Your Own Fear of These Conversations 

It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that approaching a visibly distressed employee is uncomfortable. Most managers will feel the instinct to give someone who is visibly stressed their space, avoid the subject, or hope things resolve on their own. 

This instinct to minimize contact with suffering is deeply human. But avoidance doesn’t protect the employee. It leaves them without support at the moment they need it most. 

The shift in mindset that makes these conversations manageable is this: you are not trying to fix the problem or eliminate the pain. You cannot do that. What you can do is show up, listen, and connect them to resources. In the moment, that is enough – and it matters more than you know. 

The Bottom Line 

Managing people through crisis is one of the hardest and most important things HR leaders do. It asks you to hold space for others’ suffering while maintaining your own stability, to enforce performance standards while leading with empathy, and to stay in your lane while making sure no one falls through the cracks. 

You don’t have to be a therapist. You don’t have to have the perfect words. You just have to show up, stay grounded, lead by example and know your resources. 

That’s enough. And in the hardest moments, it’s everything. 

The post Leading Through the Storm: How HR Leaders Can Support Their Workforce During Times of Extreme Crisis and Stress  appeared first on ComPsych.

The Problem with Point Solutions  

Over the past decade, digital tools from sleep apps and wearable tech to financial wellness platforms have been steadily popping up in mass quantities. These options offer a wealth of benefits including fast access, broad choice, and support for employee well-being. With them comes a new challenge to address: disconnection. When mental health benefits operate in silos, the result isn’t better care. It’s confusion, missed opportunities, and uneven outcomes. 

This disconnection creates significant hurdles for organizations worldwide. When employees face a mental health challenge, they are forced to navigate a maze of different apps, websites, and programs, trying to figure out which one is right for their specific situation. This search can be overwhelming, causing many to give up before they even get started. Ultimately, these gaps create unfortunate situations where people don’t seek help at the critical moment when they need it most. Access alone isn’t enough, support must be connected, human, and timely. 

Behavioral Health Doesn’t Exist in Isolation 

These challenges rarely happen one at a time. These factors often overlap and compound, creating a complex web of stress that a single, siloed solution cannot hope to untangle. Rather than forcing employees to navigate multiple vendors and programs, employers need approaches that reflect how people actually live and work. Behavioral health support works best when it connects emotional care, practical resources, and workplace support into a cohesive experience. The goal is connected support that meets people where they are, before pressure turns into crisis. 

What “Complete Behavioral Health” Really Means 

For more than 40 years, ComPsych has led the industry in supporting employees and their family members across the full spectrum of life’s challenges by providing accessible, personalized mental health care that improves individual well-being and strengthens organizational performance. Unlike algorithm-first or point-based offerings, ComPsych balances advanced digital capabilities with live, master’s-level clinicians and other in-house specialists who deliver consistent, human-centered care.  

Creating a seamless journey also means integrating resources across ComPsych and the member’s health insurance services to address barriers like stigma, rural access, and logistical hurdles. Combining the strengths of ComPsych’s EAP and behavioral health services with easy access to in-network providers ensures members have everything they need at their time of need. 

“Behavioral health is always changing. The events and the experiences that impact humans are different in different times. We have to learn and adapt to make sure we are always meeting the needs of individuals and getting them access to the right care at the right time,” said Dr. Jennifer Birdsall, Chief Clinical Officer at ComPsych, emphasizing the person-centered care approach to holistic support. This integrated, clinically proven approach enables individuals to lead healthier, more productive lives while giving organizations the insight and confidence needed to optimize their benefits strategy. 

The Impact: Better Outcomes for People and Organizations 

When behavioral health support is connected and built around real life, the impact is felt on both sides of the employment relationship.  

For employees, easier access to care means less friction to get on the path to healing, reducing the stress and uncertainty of finding support. When employees receive timely help, before challenges escalate, they are more likely to stay engaged at work, maintain healthier boundaries, and recover more quickly from personal or professional stressors. Early, coordinated support can prevent short-term concerns from becoming long-term mental health issues. A connected behavioral health model adapts alongside the changes of life and work, ensuring continuity of care even when circumstances shift or when one form of help isn’t enough. 

For employers, complete behavioral health support reduces organizational risk and lowers downstream costs through decreased absenteeism, improved productivity and engagement, and overall retention and company culture. When employees feel supported, workplaces thrive. 

Every missed handoff, every uncoordinated referral, and every unclear pathway creates exposure, whether it shows up as lost productivity, employee dissatisfaction, or legal risk. Behavioral health challenges don’t wait for perfect timing or neat categories. The organizations that will thrive into the future are those that recognize employee well-being as the foundation to sustainable success and take steps to implement comprehensive care without gaps. In a complex world, behavioral health support must be complete, connected, and built for real life.  

The post Complete Behavioral Health: Closing the Gaps That Put People at Risk  appeared first on ComPsych.

But there’s another impact that’s less visible—and far more persistent.

Six months after a major weather disaster, employers in affected areas see mental health leaves spike by 37% to 59%. Eighteen months later? Those numbers climb even higher, reaching 77% in some cases.

For context, during those same timeframes, the overall increase in mental health leaves across the broader workforce was just 2% to 8%.

Why the Mental Health Impact Lasts So Long

It’s not hard to understand why. In the immediate aftermath of a traumatic weather event, people go into survival mode. They’re focused on finding shelter, accessing food and water, checking on loved ones, and assessing the damage.

The psychological processing comes later.

Weeks and months after the storm has passed, the real emotional reckoning begins. There’s the grief of what was lost. The stress of navigating insurance claims and FEMA applications. The exhaustion of rebuilding. The ongoing uncertainty about the future.

And with extreme weather events increasing by 74% worldwide over the past 20 years according to the UN, this isn’t a one-off concern: it’s an emerging workforce risk that employers need to prepare for.

What the Data Tells Us

ComPsych analyzed absence data from employers in communities affected by three major weather disasters: Hurricane Harvey (2017), the Maui Wildfires (2023), and Hurricane Helene (2024). We compared mental health leave patterns in these regions against our overall book of business covering approximately 6 million people. The findings were striking.

The pattern is clear: traumatic weather events create a sustained surge in mental health leaves that extends well beyond the immediate crisis period.

Understanding this pattern is the first step. The second is preparing your organization to combat this emerging risk and support employees through these extended recovery periods. Data shows weather disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. The organizations that thrive will be those that understand the full scope of impact, including the mental health toll that persists long after the skies clear.

Dig into the data further and learn how your organization can prepare by downloading the full white paper.

The post The Hidden Toll: How Extreme Weather Events Impact Employee Mental Health & Leaves of Absence appeared first on ComPsych.

Concern #1 – Manager Knew There was a Medical Condition and Did Nothing 

One of the most common and most costly absence management risks occurs when managers know or should know that an employee may have a serious health condition but fail to take action. 

This often happens when managers dismiss warning signs as “just being sick,” treat absences as routine attendance issues, or assume it’s the employee’s responsibility to explicitly ask for FMLA leave. Under the law, that assumption can be dangerously wrong. In this example, managers have enough information to trigger the organization’s obligation to inquire about the need for FMLA need, but they do nothing. 

Training tip: Educate managers on recognizing the difference between “being sick” and serious medical conditions.  Also, require employees to follow established policies and if they can’t (or don’t) ensure that managers are trained to report the leave themselves.  

When managers know what to look for and exactly what to do next, organizations are far better positioned to meet their legal obligations and support employees appropriately before a missed signal turns into a lawsuit. 

Concern #2 – Manager Knew of the Leave but Failed to Redirect to Proper Channels 

Another major absence management risk arises when managers know an employee needs time off for a medical or family reason but fail to connect the employee to the correct leave process. Instead of redirecting the individual to HR or a leave administrator, these managers delay, forget, or provide vague guidance that leaves employees unsupported and exposed. In this example, the manager may tell an employee to “take all the time you need,” accept informal texts or messages through social media instead of following policy, or simply fail to explain how to request FMLA leave. 

In one case, an employee urgently needed time off to care for a family member in a life-threatening situation. Her supervisors never informed her of the FMLA process, never directed her to HR, and never followed up. Only after a relative mentioned FMLA did the employee realize she had protections. By then, inconsistent messaging, missed guidance, and disciplinary action had already occurred, leading the court to rule against the employer. 

Training tip: Ensure managers immediately redirect leave-related discussions to HR or the appropriate team. Providing managers with a simple script for handling leave inquiries and getting the discussion to the right individual is imperative.  

When managers know exactly where to send employees and what to say, organizations promote clarity, protect employees, and significantly lower the risk of leave-related lawsuits. 

Concern #3 – Manager Responded to the Request Inappropriately  

One of the most visible and damaging manager risks is how supervisors respond in the moment when an employee raises a leave request. And while it’s understandable that managers may have emotional reactions to unexpected leave requests, , a single emotional or dismissive reaction can undermine employee trust and create significant legal exposure even when the organization has strong policies in place. In these situations, it’s not the leave itself that creates risk, it’s the response. 

Courts have consistently scrutinized situations where managers responded with remarks like: 

“You’ve missed a lot of work.” 

“Suck it up.” 

“You’ve taken too many days off.” 

“It’s not a good time to take leave.” 

In several cases, poorly worded texts, emails, or offhand remarks became central to lawsuits demonstrating how quickly a moment of frustration can escalate into liability.  

Training tip: Train the supervisor to react calmly and with empathy. Role playing is a great way to practice this skill to help keep emotional responses in check when these situations do arise.  

When managers are trained to pause, respond thoughtfully, and follow an optional script, organizations significantly reduce one of the most common risks. 

Concern #4 – Made Improper Comments During the Leave 

Another critical manager risk surrounding employee leave is when supervisors say or write things they shouldn’t about an employee’s leave. Casual comments, poorly worded emails, or unnecessary documentation can quickly become evidence in a legal claim. The sharing of opinions can include documenting frustration in emails or performance reviews, making remarks about how the leave impacts the team, or discussing the employee’s situation with coworkers. 

Courts have repeatedly relied on these types of comments as direct evidence of discrimination or interference. Performance reviews referencing time missed due to leave, emails suggesting termination plans tied to medical absences, or offhand remarks minimizing an employee’s condition have all played central roles in successful claims against employers. From a cultural perspective, this behavior also discourages employees from using benefits they are legally entitled to, damaging trust and psychological safety across teams. 

Training tip: Prohibit discussing leave details in performance reviews or with coworkers. 

When managers understand that keeping their opinions to themselves is often the safest response, organizations reduce one of the most preventable manager risks. 

Concern #5 – Manager Improperly Contacted Employees During Leave  

The final manager risk involves what happens after leave begins. Even well-intentioned outreach can cross the line when managers contact employees unnecessarily, or worse, pressure them to keep working while on leave. Once an employee is approved for leave, manager involvement must be handled with extreme care. Although courts have held that employees on leave do not have a right to be left alone, managers who request updates, or ask the employee to complete tasks is creating significant risk for their employer.  

Courts have uniformly held that requiring or coercing employees to perform work while on FMLA leave can constitute unlawful interference, even if the employee doesn’t formally object. Requests to update projects, handle accounts, or complete assignments have repeatedly resulted in employer liability. 

Training tip: Establish clear boundaries for the leave process. Employees who are on leave should be left alone. If outreach is absolutely necessary, HR teams need to be the ones to handle the communication.  

Empowering Managers to Protect Your Organization and Employees  

Managers and supervisors are integral to any team. When it comes to absence management, well-meaning managers often cross the line with their employees in a variety of ways. Some are too hands off, some are too hands on, and many just don’t know their company’s policies. In order to avoid risk and legal exposure, managers need to understand the processes and the stakes when it comes to employee leaves of absence. Managers don’t need to be leave experts, but they do need to know what to recognize, what to say, and when to step out of the process. Absence management works best when managers act as connectors, not decision makers. By addressing these five manager faux paus head-on, employers can protect their organization, support their workforce, and avoid unnecessary risk. 

Learn more about the absence landscape and how to stay ahead of the curve in 2026. 

The post 5 Manager Risks in Absence Management You Need to Know appeared first on ComPsych.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA): Exercise Caution 

It’s been a little over a year since the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations were enacted and while they were helpful, many questions remain. As an accommodation law with a similar structure to the ADA, much of the guidance will come from the courts. And although many PWFA complaints have been filed in federal court, we haven’t yet seen any courts render decisions. Given the ambiguity in the law, employers should exercise caution when it comes to pregnancy accommodations.  

Considering the “Honest Belief” Defense 

“Honest belief” keeps on rolling! Over the last ten years, some courts have held that employers can take action against an employee if they have an “honest belief” that an employee is misusing leave.   

As employment relationships (and therefore court decisions) become more complex, most courts continue to be supportive of the doctrine, particularly where the employer has conducted an impartial investigation.  In 2025, we continued to see courts adopt this legal theory which bodes well for employers.  

Costly ADA Judgments and Accommodations  

While not every ADA judgment end up in costly verdicts, we’ve certainly seen an increase in seismic damage awards – $27 million, $22 million, and $1 million were awarded in recent cases. The bad news is that at least some juries seem to be less than sympathetic and in the case with the largest award, the court noted that the employer’s profits (which were more than $18 million per day) were considered relevant in determining an appropriate punishment (punitive damages alone in that case were $25 million!). 

The good news is that the errors made by these employers involved many of the same challenging issues we’ve been addressing for years. For example, remote work, “100% healed policies,” and fitness for duty. That’s not to say those are easy questions, but they are solvable, and we know we can assist employers navigate the complexities inherent in these issues.   

Manager Communications as a Cause for Concern  

Managers greatly impact employees and must be informed of best practices relating to leave of absences. According to a recent DMEC survey, 79% of employers say training managers around the FMLA is challenging, but poor communication with employees can get employers into trouble.  The courts’ decisions continue to demonstrate that managers need help with knowing what they can and should do, and maybe even more importantly, what they should not do.  If training is not an option, employers should consider reducing the role managers play in employee leaves. 

A Need to Integrate Mental Health Support 

To address the absence trends for 2026, organizations need to adopt a proactive and holistic approach. Stress, due to caregiving or other responsibilities, can worsen physical ailments, exacerbating the need for leave in some cases. Our recent study found that when employees used available behavioral health services, leave duration was shortened by 6 days, no matter the reason for leave. 

Integrated solutions, such as Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) that work directly with absence management providers, can provide a seamless experience for employees. This holistic approach not only supports the employee but also reduces the likelihood of extended or frequent absences. 

Invest in a Culture of Well-being 

Ultimately, the most effective way to reduce unplanned absenteeism is to build a workplace where employees feel valued, supported, and psychologically safe. This starts with leadership. Managers trained to recognize signs of burnout, lead with empathy, and encourage open conversations about mental health can make a significant difference. 

Providing resources to help manage stress, like well-being coaching, go a long way in supporting the employee as a person and preventing small issues from becoming large health concerns that may cause them to be absent from work. When an organization prioritizes the well-being of its people, it creates a resilient workforce that is healthier, happier, and more present. 

Conclusion: Preparing for the Future of Work 

The absence trends for 2026 paint a clear picture: the workforce is facing new and complex challenges. New regulations, remote work, mental health, caregiving, manager training, the PWFA and more continue to be at the forefront of the conversation. 

Employers who recognize these as priorities and act proactively will be best positioned for success in 2026. Learn more about how we can help prepare your team for the year ahead by learning more about AbsenceResources. 

The post Absence Trends for 2026: What Employers Need to Know  appeared first on ComPsych.