'Benefits aren't really a side perk anymore and the data is really clear about that,' says HUB International Canada's Faizal Mitha
Employers who rely on outdated or overly simplistic data fail to reflect the real needs of their workforce, particularly when it comes to benefits decisions.
That’s the main concern Faizal Mitha wants employers to understand and address before the gap between expectations and delivery gets any bigger. According to HUB International’s recent Workforce Vitality Gap Index, data gaps are resulting in missed opportunities for employers. Mitha emphasized that when employers rely on incomplete data to guide their benefits strategy, the result is often wasted spending and unmet employee needs. Programs may be well-intentioned, but if they aren't used or valued by employees, they fail to deliver real impact.
“Benefits aren't really a side perk anymore and the data is really clear about that. How can it be a side perk when we're seeing that financial stress and mental health is impacting productivity? Employers need to look at it as a material offering driven around productivity, but also engagement of employees. If you don't look at benefits in that way, I think you're missing a tremendous opportunity. You end up wasting dollars, and you're providing something that doesn't resonate with employees,” said Mitha, chief sales and chief innovation officer at HUB International Canada.
While many employers offer services such as EAPs, less than one in four employees actually use them. Yet organizations often treat the mere existence of these programs as a checkbox. That kind of approach, he argues, masks deeper problems.
“There’s a big group of employees that require that service and aren’t using it,” he said. “There's wasted dollars, and then you have employees who have unmet needs. What happens when an employee comes to work and they have challenges around mental health that aren’t being supported? That impacts productivity and there we go again with that cycle.”
Mitha questions whether vendors are being held accountable for outcomes, such as engagement or utilization, and whether employers are actively reviewing these programs to assess their effectiveness. And when mental health needs go unaddressed, the costs show up elsewhere - namely in reduced employee productivity. The cycle, he warns, is repeating itself because organizations are failing to dig deeper into the data and ask the harder questions.
According to Mitha, the path forward for employers starts with making better use of the internal data they already have and being more strategic in how they work with external partners, whether it's insurers, brokers, or consultants. He argues employers often treat these partnerships as commodity transactions, focused on who can offer the lowest cost, rather than who can deliver the most meaningful insights.
Instead, he urges employers to focus on mobilizing their own data and choosing partners who can help extract value from it.
“Data is the great connector. It’s what fills the gap that exists right now between employee needs and what employers are offering," he said.
Mitha acknowledged the issue isn’t necessarily with the data itself as much of it reinforces trends already in motion. The bigger problem, he argues, lies in how employers interpret and act on that data, particularly when it comes to benchmarking.
While many organizations measure utilization and absenteeism, Mitha believes those data sets don’t go deep enough. The demographic segmentation that marketers use like location, life stage, income level, can reveal insights that traditional HR metrics miss entirely.
“Even something as simple as postal code data gives you a lens,” he said. “You’ll know if you’ve got clusters of employees who are financially fragile. That helps inform plan design and communications.”
That kind of analysis led to one employer decision that stands out. Mitha recalls a firm preparing to cut dental coverage from 100 per cent to 80 per cent based on standard benchmarking. But deeper analysis revealed they were living paycheck to paycheck and reducing dental coverage could mean they wouldn’t get to visit the dentist.
The insight led the employer to reconsider the cut, not just for its cost implications, but for its broader impact on employee wellbeing, productivity, and retention. Mitha calls this “data-driven empathy” and he believes it’s where the benefits conversation needs to go.
“Very few employers ever look at that type of data,” he said. “But it gives you a real advantage.”
Mitha emphasized the importance of applying “data-driven empathy” at scale, particularly in large organizations where one-on-one assessments aren’t practical. He believes employers should be leveraging existing internal data sources, like postal codes, to better understand their workforce and tailor their benefits strategies accordingly. This kind of geographic analysis can reveal financial vulnerabilities across employee groups, helping employers identify clusters of workers who may be living paycheck to paycheck and tailor communications and benefits to their specific needs.
Additionally, Mitha highlighted an increasing disconnect among employers in their attempt to address financial wellness, noting most turn to long-term savings tools like group RRSPs or defined contribution pension plans. But for many employees, those solutions are misaligned with their immediate reality as most are dealing with rent and short-term issues, he said.
To address this, some employers are beginning to rethink their approach, without necessarily increasing costs. Mitha pointed to emerging plan designs where employers continue contributing to retirement savings, but employee matching dollars can be directed toward debt repayment instead as a way to support both long-term goals and short-term financial relief, something he argues is far more relevant for younger workers burdened by student debt.
Instead of aligning to generic benchmarks, he believes employers should be asking more direct, relevant questions, like how well their employees even understand the benefits being offered. But even then, the answers may be misleading, since many employees aren't fully aware of what's available to them.
“We need to really figure out how do we position our benefits... around personalization and recognizing the different groups within the organization,” he said. “Really looking at the data and listening to your employees, asking better questions, then acting on those questions, will give you a tremendous advantage.
