Just weeks into the new year, the American Cancer Society marked a historic turning point: for the first time, 70 percent of Americans with cancer can expect to live at least five years post-diagnosis. This comes as major studies reveal that cancer survivorship everywhere is on the rise, ushering in a new era wherein cancer is no longer seen as an automatic death sentence, but as yet another manageable disease.
Yet challenges nevertheless persist. While mortality may be increasingly under control, morbidity remains a pressing, far more formidable challenge of an entirely different order. As research shows, cancer survivors face an uphill battle against a tidal wave of physical, emotional, and cognitive symptoms even long after treatment ends—compounded by subsequent social, vocational, and financial obstacles that make recovery that much harder to achieve.
For insurers, the implications are unmistakable. As one of the leading drivers of disability claims worldwide, the longer it takes cancer survivors to recover and return to life and work, the greater the costs. As rising survivorship makes temporary disability the expected rather than exceptional outcome, it follows that insurers would do all they can to minimize both the duration and impact of cancer-related claims—for themselves, their clients, and above all, for claimants.
Many cancer survivors themselves affirm that the rehabilitative support provided through their insurance can be transformative in helping them navigate the often-unexpected challenges that emerge in the weeks and months following treatment. These include the problems many run into at work—discrimination, high job demands, uninformed teams, and unprepared or unsupportive managers; the cognitive effects of fatigue and “brain fog” that can linger long after treatment; and the identity crisis that can ensue as survivors return to their lives as fundamentally and forever changed individuals.
“It is [widely understood] that those with a good support system while undergoing a life-changing situation usually fare better in recovery, and this should be considered as a potential factor that could impact claim duration,” observes Lamees Daniels, a Claims Specialist at Gen Re. “The general conclusion of the studies on this topic show that those who are supported by a multi-disciplinary team approach [that] addresses physical, psycho-educational, and vocational components [are far more likely to return to work] compared to if they received the usual cancer care.”
The case for insurer intervention, therefore, is clear: by investing in a comprehensive service that addresses survivors’ psychosocial needs across the cancer journey—from the time of diagnosis through the early, decisive months of reintegration—insurers can support faster, more sustainable recoveries and ensure a smoother, more predictable claims process for their policyholders and for themselves.
Operationalizing Cancer Recovery and Reintegration: How WPO Can Help
With Cancer Care Compass, Workplace Options (WPO) offers insurers a dedicated, clinically guided pathway bridging recovery and sustainable workforce reintegration. Designed as a specialized return-to-work solution—not a generic counseling add-on—Cancer Care Compass helps members navigate the psychological, functional, and vocational challenges of cancer at every stage of the journey.
Through dedicated Cancer Care Coordinators, members receive strengths and functional assessments to evaluate emotional, cognitive, and vocational capacity, with referrals to onco-psychologists or other targeted support as needed. Coordinators also provide structured return-to-work guidance, practical resource navigation, and support for communication and manager consultations, ensuring a coordinated, sustainable transition back to professional life.
To highlight the value of Cancer Care Compass for insurers, Marketing and Communications Manager Emily Fournier spoke with Yara Maria Kamel, Global Clinical Solutions Manager at WPO, about the program’s origins, its aims and outcomes, and why it’s a strong investment decision.
Read their insightful conversation below:
EMILY: To start, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about ‘the why’ behind the program: what led to its development? What were perhaps some of the trends that you were noticing that you aimed to address through this program, or gaps you aimed to fill?
YARA: The development of this program was really sparked by a series of alarming trends we saw in how cancer survivors were being reintegrated into the workforce. While medical teams focus on survival, the “why” behind our work is rooted in the stark disconnect we noticed between clinical recovery and professional reality.
As we observed cancer become one of the leading drivers of workplace absenteeism, it was clear that the support systems simply weren’t keeping pace. In parallel with our work, we saw global movements like the “Working with Cancer” pledge highlighting these exact same stigmas, including the fact that 50 percent of cancer patients are afraid to even tell their employer about their diagnosis. That fear of job insecurity is the first hurdle, but we realized there was a critical second hurdle: what happens once the diagnosis is out in the open?
The transition back to professional life is often incredibly fragile. Globally, the likelihood of a successful return to work varies wildly depending on the support available. We observed a persistent gap between patients being declared ‘medically fit’ and their actual ability to successfully reintegrate into their roles, highlighting a systemic failure to bridge the move from clinic to cubicle.
It is also a harsh reality that many survivors face workplace discrimination, largely because managers and peers don’t understand that cancer remains a disability that impacts life long after the final treatment ends.
Ultimately, we aimed to fill the gaps that medical teams aren’t equipped to handle. Most patients feel they cannot bring the emotional, social, or vocational aspects of their journey to their doctors, leaving them with nowhere to turn for practical career guidance. While the “Working with Cancer” pledge works to erase the stigma and the initial fear of disclosure, our program was designed to provide the actual infrastructure for what comes next: ensuring that once a survivor speaks up, they have a sustainable and supported path forward.
EMILY: As you mentioned, the Cancer Care Compass programs blends psychosocial and oncology-informed support to address not only the medical aspects of recovery, but the social, vocational, financial, and emotional dimensions as well. Why is this type of support essential for individuals’ recovery and return to work?
YARA: The effectiveness of a comprehensive program like Cancer Care Compass lies in its recognition that recovery is rarely a linear, purely physiological process. By offering psychosocial support in parallel to traditional oncological care, the program addresses the reality that a survivor’s ability to return to the workforce is often dictated by factors far beyond the initial diagnosis.
Cancer recovery is an all-encompassing journey that reshapes a person’s life. When a survivor faces profound changes to their physical appearance, functional abilities, and professional identity, the risk of developing secondary disabilities becomes a significant barrier. Likewise, if a survivor meets the criteria for a clinical diagnosis such as depression or severe anxiety, these conditions act as secondary hurdles that can be just as debilitating as the primary illness.
These are not merely side effects; they are core components of the patient experience that dictate the success of any return-to-work plan. Without holistic support, a survivor struggling with their mental health will likely find it impossible to manage lingering physical symptoms, minimize workplace stress, or maintain the physiological stamina required to perform their job duties effectively.
By proactively managing these psychological dimensions, Cancer Care Compass ensures that the member is mentally equipped to navigate the complexities of a professional environment, rather than being overwhelmed by the transition.
Perhaps the most critical function of this multidimensional support is its ability to protect against falling into a pattern of “pearled” or “sawtooth” recoveries characterized by frequent, short-term work interruptions that occur when a survivor attempts to return before they are holistically ready—creating an unstable “back-and-forth” that is taxing for both the employee and the organization.
Many survivors attempt to return to work only to find that lingering complications or unaddressed emotional stressors force them back onto medical leave. This cycle not only prolongs the duration of insurance claims but can also lead to a permanent exit from the workforce. Cancer Care Compass minimizes these risks by identifying and mitigating red flags—such as financial instability or vocational anxiety—before they snowball into a crisis.
By providing a stable foundation of support, the program reduces the risk of avoidable setbacks and additional functional challenges during recovery, ensuring that once a survivor returns to work, they have the resilience to stay there and thrive.
EMILY: From the program’s perspective, it sounds like the return-to-work stage is less the end of the road for a survivor’s recovery journey than it is the beginning. Why is this an important distinction for insurers to understand?
YARA: Shifting the perspective from the return-to-work date being the “finish line” to it being a “new starting point” is a critical strategic adjustment. Treating the first day back as the end of the claim often leads to a false sense of closure that ignores the highest-risk period for a survivor’s long-term stability.
The initial transition back to the workplace is frequently when the most intense psychosocial pressures emerge. While a survivor may be medically cleared, the reality of cognitive fog, decreased physical stamina, and the anxiety of “performing like I used to” only becomes once they are back at their desk.
If an insurer closes the file the moment the survivor clocks in, they lose the visibility needed to provide the “scaffolding” required during this fragile phase. This lack of oversight can lead to the “sawtooth” recovery cycle, where the survivor pushes through the first few weeks before collapsing back into a secondary leave or a permanent exit from the workforce.
From a risk management standpoint, recognizing that recovery continues during work is the most effective way to ensure claim stability. Actively managing this new beginning allows insurers to prevent the “pearled” absenteeism that eventually leads to a formal relapse and a reopened claim. It is significantly more cost-effective to provide low-intensity psychosocial support while an employee is working than it is to fund a second, potentially longer, disability leave.
By making this distinction, insurers move away from a narrow focus on clinical recovery and toward the development of long-term professional resilience. Cancer Care Compass ensures that the survivor is psychologically and vocationally equipped to handle the demands of their role.
When insurers view the return as a new chapter of the recovery journey, they invest in a transition that is durable rather than one that is merely a temporary pause in a cycle of disability.
EMILY: That’s really impactful, thank you so much for sharing. One last question before we go: If you had to briefly sum up the value of Cancer Care Compass for disability insurers, what would you say? And do you think that we’ll see programs like these increasingly picked up by the industry?
YARA: To sum it up, Cancer Care Compass transforms the insurer’s role from a passive payer into a proactive partner in recovery. Its value does not lie in claiming to prevent natural psychological reactions such as anxiety or depression—which are often understandable responses to a cancer diagnosis. Rather, its value lies in preventing those distresses from becoming functional barriers that lead to secondary disability or failed return-to-work outcomes.
From an insurer’s perspective, the program breaks the costly link between having symptoms and being unable to work. Many cancer survivors attempt to return to work while still navigating fatigue, cognitive shifts, emotional vulnerability, or treatment side effects. Without structured support, those challenges often manifest as unstable recovery patterns—all of which signal a fragile reintegration. Claimants who feel supported rather than processed, on the other hand, demonstrate higher engagement, clearer communication, and more realistic return-to-work planning.
As for the industry at large, we are already seeing a significant shift toward this type of specialized, high-touch support. The “one-size-fits-all” approach to disability management is becoming obsolete as insurers realize that complex diagnoses like cancer require more than just medical clearance; they require a bridge back to real life.
With cancer diagnoses rising among the working-age population, the financial and human costs of unsuccessful returns to work can no longer be ignored.
EMILY: Absolutely, well said. Well, this has been a fantastic discussion. Thank you so much again, Yara, for your time and insights. For insurers interested in learning more about Cancer Care Compass enhances disability risk management and supports sustainable return-to-work outcomes for claimants impacted by cancer, connect with us today at https://www.workplaceoptions.com/contact-us/.
