The Mental Health Benefits Push

Employee benefit providers are seeing demand for mental health programs to supplement retirement saving and financial wellness offerings.

Mental health awareness at the workplace came to the forefront during the pandemic, and the demand by employees for health benefits has only continued to grow, according to recent research and actions by benefit providers.

On Tuesday, benefits provider Voya Financial Inc. announced enhancements to its mental health benefits offerings for those diagnosed with mental or neurodevelopmental issues, as well as for those who have suffered an accident that has impacted their mental well-being.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The week prior, corporate well-being provider Grokker announced a new, on-demand mental health course for employees that has been taken on by the likes of Delta Air Lines. Meanwhile, earlier this summer, MetLife Inc. paired with Lyra Health on a program to provide employees with access to mental health services when they file a disabilty or absence claim.

The proliferation of mental health benefits is, according to providers, being driven by demand for wellness options that go beyond financial or saving benefits, whether for specific groups in need—in the case of Voya and Metlife—or the general populace, such as with Grokker. Whichever the case, recent research backs up the employer call for such benefits: Mental health needs in the workforce have risen in 2023, with 77% of large employers reporting an increase in employee demand, a 33-percentage-point surge over 2022, according to a survey released last week by the Business Group on Health, a membership organization representing large employers.

“Our survey found that in 2024 and for the near future, employers will be acutely focused on addressing employees’ mental health needs while ensuring access and lowering cost barriers,” Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health, said in a statement accompanying the report. “Companies will need to creatively and deftly navigate these and other challenges in the coming year, especially as they remain committed to providing high-quality health and well-being offerings while managing overall costs.” 

The Business Group on Health report, which surveyed 152 employers representing some 19 million employees in June and July, found that the increase in mental health challenges has employers looking to offer mental health services with

increased options and lower costs for care.

Where There’s a Need

Lorna Borenstein, CEO and founder of Grokker, says she started hearing about the increased need for mental health benefits to supplement financial wellness needs shortly after the pandemic, particularly for workforces that had experienced widespread layoffs and then re-hirings, such as hospitality and tourism. Firms such as Delta and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group found their workers calling for accessible, cost-effective and efficient mental health options.

“The pandemic didn’t create the situation,” Borenstein says. “It made it so employers couldn’t ignore it.”

Borenstein, who came to benefits from a technology background, says the pandemic showed employers that when a worker is not doing well mentally, they do not show up as their best selves and, ultimately, may not stay with the company as long—an issue for industries with high turnover rates.

“Employers were saying, ‘We need to think about these issues because we want to keep our people with us,’” she says. “They wanted to show their employees they care about them and want them to be taken care of, not just financially, but mentally.”

Serving the demand, however, is easier said than done. Borenstein says she started hearing from clients about the need for new offerings because they were finding “there aren’t enough clinicians on earth to satisfy the mental health needs of our population,” according to the CEO.

“Not everyone wants to go to see a psychologist or psychiatrist anyway,” Borenstein points out. “We needed to bridge the gap between traditional thinking about helping people with mental health and the way we operate today. … We needed to make it accessible, as well as affordable.”

On-Demand Mental Health

On August 17, the San Jose, California-based company announced a new 30-day, workplace-provided mental health program for employees. The digital offering, which includes video elements, leverages licensed clinical psychologists focused on cognitive behavioral therapy, according to Borenstein. The program combines live sessions with a “three-steps-a-day” program intended to give employees a robust, yet on-demand mental health benefit.

“It’s a whole new way of thinking about mental health care and prevention,” according to Borenstein. “If people want to do more after the program, they can. But this helps people get started right away without the hurdle of setting up appointments or just that scary first step of starting therapy.”

Benefits providers and advisers may want to pay attention to the mental health trend, according to the Business Health Group findings. The need for better mental care may also be driving business changes, according to the research, as more than 50% of employers plan to assess healthcare partnerships and vendors for their value and cost-effectiveness.

Voya’s new mental health insurance enhancements, announced last week, “have become increasingly popular components of employers’ benefits packages,” according to the insurance, retirement and financial wellness provider. Voya’s program adds benefits for mental health disorders and increased flexibility available with critical illness insurance.

“By helping employers provide meaningful workplace benefits solutions, we are responding to the growing expectations from employees that their employer support more than just their medical and dental insurance needs,” Nate Black, vice president of health solutions product development at Voya, said in a statement. “Specifically, our research has found 55% of employed Americans strongly or somewhat agree that their employer has a responsibility in ensuring they are both mentally healthy and emotionally well.”

The expanded offerings include coverage for mental illness and/or neurodevelopment disorders (such as Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Autism spectrum disorder), Voya wrote. The company also enhanced accident insurance to cover psychological or psychiatric care prescribed by a doctor and provided in an office, hospital or other eligible facility on an inpatient or outpatient basis after a covered accident, the firm announced.

May Climate Funds Be Used in DC Plan Menus?

Yes, as long as they don’t come at the cost of participants’ investment outcomes, according to Wagner Law Group.


The Wagner Law Group published a legal opinion letter outlining how and when fiduciaries for defined contribution plans can consider “climate-aligned” funds in investment menus. The letter was written on behalf of Impact Experience, a nonprofit and advocate for sustainable investing.

According to the letter, the legal considerations for climate-aligned funds essentially come down to how a fund considers climate-related factors in its risk-return analysis.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the ERISA attorneys, if the fund subordinates financial returns to collateral benefits, such as combatting climate change or lowering greenhouse gas emissions, then its inclusion in an investment menu is not permissible under ERISA: “In no event may a DC Plan fiduciary subordinate the financial interests of plan participants to other objectives.”

If the fund does not subordinate financial interests to collateral interests, however, then climate-related factors may be added, provided that their inclusion is otherwise consistent with the duties of loyalty and prudence to the plan.

“A DC Plan fiduciary is permitted to select a menu option for its collateral benefits, only if such selection is made from competing menu alternatives where the DC Plan fiduciary has prudently concluded that such menu option and its competing alternatives would equally serve the financial interests of plan participant,” the letter stated.

The language “equally serve” mirrors the language found in the Department of Labor’s final rule on environmental, social and governance as it relates to ERISA, finalized in November 2022.

The DOL’s outlines the “tiebreaker” test, in which an ERISA fiduciary decides between two investments, one with a collateral benefit and one without. According to DOL guidance, the fund with the collateral benefit may be chosen if both would “equally serve the financial interests of the plan over the appropriate time horizon. In such cases, the fiduciary is not prohibited from selecting the investment, or investment course of action, based on collateral benefits other than investment returns.”

Though this rule is facing two legal challenges, it is the governing rule.

Different Types of Climate Funds

Wagner outlined three categories of climate-aligned funds: climate integration, climate focused and climate impact.

Climate integration funds make adjustments for climate risks and opportunities and typically do not have hard thresholds or “screening” that would categorically exclude certain climate-related metrics. These funds can be considered on their own merits because they do not subordinate financial returns to collateral benefits, since they integrate climate risk as a financial return criterion.

Climate-focused funds use climate risks as a “significant factor” in selection. They may also feature positive or negative screens that include or exclude securities which meet or fail to meet particular climate-related thresholds. Similar to integration funds, focused funds can be considered on their merits as long as “the fund is not applying an investment screen in the pursuit of collateral or other non-investment benefits to the detriment of fund investors.”

When it comes to focused funds, the consideration of alternatives is key. Wagner recommended that a fiduciary “investigate competing menu alternatives that have conventional investment strategies and that are otherwise similar to the Climate Focused Fund.”

Wagner noted that ERISA does not, per se, forbid screens, and likens focused funds to specialty funds, or funds that focus on a specific sector and are often found in investment menus: “Specialty Funds are routinely considered as menu options for DC Plans, and the relevant screening feature is simply evaluated by plan fiduciaries as an integral component of the specialty fund’s investment strategy. Analogously, it should be permissible to include prudently selected Climate Focused Funds in DC Plan menus.”

Lastly, Wagner considered impact funds. As a best practice, Wagner recommends not adding impact funds at all to an investment menu, because they subordinate financial returns to climate goals and are willing to lower returns to that end if necessary: “As a suggested ‘best’ practice, we would recommend that Firms in their capacity as DC Plan fiduciaries exclude Climate Impact Funds.”

«