The program is designed to intervene early while keeping at-risk employees productive and in the workforce before a disability claim becomes inevitable
Medavie Blue Cross has launched a consultation service designed to help employers handle accommodation requests from employees who aren’t on disability leave, a segment of the workforce one expert believes has historically fallen through the cracks.
Their at-work accommodation program targets employees who are either struggling at work due to a physical or mental impairment or who are off on leave but not covered under disability benefits, notes Gillian Grossman, senior product specialist at Medavie Blue Cross.
“There's this segment of the working population who are still actively at work and are not yet on disability, but are struggling," she said. "Some of our plan sponsors were seeing disability claims go through the roof and costs go through the roof. They're asking us for ways that what can we do to help them mitigate disability."
The program is part of a broader disability mitigation strategy, Grossman explained, noting that if employers can intervene before a worker ends up on a disability claim, they stand a better chance of keeping that person productive.
"When employees leave the workforce because of disability, the longer they're gone, the harder it is to bring them back," she added.
The launch also coincided with a wave of return-to-work mandates from federal and other employers, which has driven a rise in complex accommodation requests tied to chronic conditions, mental health, and neurodivergent needs. Grossman said the program is designed to intervene early while keeping at-risk employees productive and in the workforce before a disability claim becomes inevitable.
Medavie Blue Cross has partnered with Arc Health to deliver the service. Medavie's role is to position accommodation as a component of a health and wellness strategy for employers while Arc Health is responsible for delivering the service itself, including handling client interactions, guiding employers through complex cases, and managing billing.
She believes the partnership matters because Medavie has chosen to work with specialists in the non-disability accommodation space rather than relying on a traditional disability claims model, which gives employers access to more focused expertise.
According to Grossman, the service is intended for employees in the non-disability space whose health condition or functional limitation is affecting their ability to do their job, whether the issue is physical or mental. That can include people dealing with anxiety, recovering from an injury, or managing chronic conditions and flare-ups. Essentially, if a condition is interfering with someone’s ability to perform their work, ultimately falls within the service’s remit.
She also emphasized how accommodation is not limited to one type of response. Depending on the situation, options can include reduced or adjusted hours, flexible scheduling, extra breaks, reassignment, or a redistribution of duties. The focus is on finding a workable adjustment that allows the employee to keep functioning on the job.
"We’re not necessarily with this service looking to cure the problem. We're just trying to find solutions that enable the individual to still be productive and contributing to the place of employment,” she noted.
What separates this from a traditional disability management program comes down to context, according to Grossman. In the disability space, carriers manage the return-to-work process once an employee files a short-term disability claim. But in the non-disability space, the rules change. Employers and employees face different duties and obligations around investigating requests, understanding functional limitations, and documenting decisions.
She argues that those distinctions matter because employers in the non-disability space have to navigate issues such as investigating requests, assessing functional limitations, managing communication, and documenting decisions in a way that aligns with human rights obligations.
Notably, the amount and type of information they can ask for also differs from what is permitted in the disability claims context. In her view, that legal and procedural grey area is exactly what makes the service valuable: it is built specifically to help employers manage the nuances of accommodation outside the disability system.
She also noted the aim is to build awareness among plan sponsors that accommodation, when used early and properly, can serve as a disability mitigation tool. A big part of that value, she suggests, is giving employers confidence that they are meeting their legal obligations while making informed decisions in an area that is often difficult to navigate.
For example, she points to human rights law and accommodation-related requirements as especially complex, particularly as employers face more requests tied to mental health and other issues that are rarely clear-cut.
In that context, she argues that specialist guidance can help employers manage both the legal and operational sides of accommodation while supporting workplace wellness and reducing the risk of absenteeism, presenteeism, and eventual disability claims.
For Grossman, the process starts with understanding an employee’s functional limitations and what they need in order to work safely and effectively, emphasizing that an employee-centred approach doesn’t mean simply granting the exact accommodation being asked for.
Instead, she describes a sound accommodation process as one built on investigation, communication, documentation, and a review of reasonable options. For her, the employer’s obligation is to provide a reasonable accommodation up to the point of undue hardship, while the role of Arc Health is to help employers strike the right balance between employee needs and business realities, including operational pressures, health and safety concerns, and the broader impact on the organization.
Grossman underscored that structured support is critical because it helps employers avoid two common mistakes: failing to accommodate properly or going too far and agreeing to measures that are more disruptive or costly than necessary.
“The two most common pitfalls are failing to accommodate properly, which puts them at legal, financial, reputational risk. Or the alternative is by overreacting and agreeing to accommodations that are probably a little more disruptive, costly than they need to be,” she said, adding the aim is to ultimately find an accommodation that works for both sides, even if it’s not identical to the employee’s original request.
“We want this to be an empowering service, something that empowers [plan sponsors] to make informed decisions. As a consultation service, ultimately, the burden of responsibility is always going to be on the employer. They're the ones that make the offers for accommodation or not. And what this service does is provide them with the knowledge and the subject matter expertise to make that informed decision while understanding what the impacts are. It's that knowledge is power type of thing that we’re really excited that this service is going to be able to provide,” said Grossman.
