Wellness
Rewards
Recognitions
Learn more about Wellable's all-in-one
employee engagement platform
EY Bets $100M on Human Skills
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
In this week’s episode, Nick and Geoff cover two timely benefits stories. First, EY announces a $100 million bonus pool for employees who demonstrate human skills, a notable signal from one of the world’s largest consulting firms about what it still values in an AI-saturated environment. Then, a Business Group on Health survey reveals that 14% of US employers have dropped or plan to drop GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits. Nick and Geoff debate where employer adoption goes from here.
Short on time? Here are the key takeaways:
- EY has allocated $100 million in bonuses for employees who demonstrate human or people skills, signaling that in a consulting business built on client relationships, AI cannot replace the value of human judgment and connection
- Geoff, a former EY employee, notes that consulting is a business where the partner selling the engagement, putting a narrative around data, and building long-term client trust is doing work that AI simply cannot replicate, making the $100 million commitment less surprising than it might appear
- Healthcare costs are rising well above general inflation, with health insurance costs up approximately 8.5% last year and projected to rise 9.2% for 2027, creating real budget pressure on employer benefits decisions
- A Business Group on Health survey found that 14% of US employers have or plan to drop GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits, a meaningful difference considering 36% cover the drug for diabetes and weight loss (60% cover it for diabetes only)
- The key difference between enthusiastic GLP-1 adopters like Bank of America and the 14% walking away is likely not disagreement about the drug’s efficacy but workforce profile—high-turnover employers bear the medication cost without capturing the long-term health benefits that justify it
Episode Summary
EY’s $100 Million Human Skills Bet
EY has allocated $100 million in bonuses for employees who demonstrate human or people skills. Geoff, a former EY employee, offers useful context: EY has long had recognition programs that reward various types of contributions, and this feels like a formalization and scaling of that tradition with an explicit focus on the skill set most at risk of being undervalued in an AI-dominated moment.
The business logic is easy to follow for a firm like EY. Consulting is, at its core, a people business. A senior partner wins business not through a better spreadsheet but through a relationship, a conversation, the ability to put a narrative around data that a client CEO finds compelling and actionable. Nick frames it sharply: at some point, outcomes have to matter, and in consulting, outcomes are inseparable from the human interactions that produce trust and insight. If an AI can generate the analysis, the human who can interpret it, contextualize it, and sell its implications is still doing irreplaceable work.
The external pressure Geoff flags is equally important. EY’s clients are increasingly sophisticated about AI and are likely asking harder questions about why consulting bills have not come down as AI improves efficiency. Explicitly celebrating human skills is EY’s answer to that pressure—a statement that the human layer is where the real value lives and that the firm is investing in it accordingly.
Nick also notes the important nuance that EY is not abandoning AI. They maintain a separate bonus pool for technology adoption alongside the human skills pool. The message is not AI versus people but AI and people, and the hundred million dollar commitment is a way of ensuring that the AI narrative does not crowd out the human one entirely inside the firm.
Why 14% of Employers Are Walking Away from GLP-1 Coverage
Health insurance costs rose approximately 8.5% last year and are projected to increase 9.2% for 2027, well above general inflation and creating real budget pressure on every employer’s benefits decisions. GLP-1 medications, which represent an entirely new category of spend that did not exist five years ago, have become a hot topic in this environment.
A Business Group on Health survey found that 14% of US employers have already planned to remove GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits. For employees who have come to depend on that coverage, whether for weight management, diabetes control, or the growing range of secondary benefits the medications are showing, this represents a significant disruption. Open enrollment is approaching, and these employees are about to discover a meaningful benefit has disappeared from their plan.
Nick’s honest puzzlement is worth sitting with: how can Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan go on CNBC and call GLP-1 spending a good investment with genuine conviction, while 14% of other employers are cutting the same benefit? Geoff’s answer reframes the question helpfully: it is not really a disagreement about whether the drugs work. It is a disagreement about who captures the return on the investment. Bank of America runs a workforce of long-tenured knowledge workers where the company has a reasonable expectation of still employing those people when the long-term health benefits, reduced cardiovascular events, lower chronic disease costs, begin to show up in claims data. A high-turnover retailer employing people who cycle through every six to twelve months cannot make that same argument. They are paying for a benefit whose payoff is measured in decades, not quarters.
Nick adds a nuance around the consumer market that changes how you think about this pullback. Unlike drugs purchased exclusively through employer plans, GLP-1s exist in a growing direct-to-consumer market where competition is already beginning to push prices down. Consumer markets drive prices in ways that employer-plan drugs historically have not experienced. If GLP-1 consumer prices continue to decline, the calculus for employers who have cut full coverage changes: a subsidy model, contributing $100 to $200 per month toward an employee’s direct purchase, becomes more viable and more affordable even for employers who cannot sustain full coverage today.
The Prediction: Where Does GLP-1 Adoption Go from Here?
With 14% of employers dropping coverage, current adoption sitting at approximately 36%, and the consumer market expanding, Nick and Geoff close with a prediction: what does employer GLP-1 adoption look like in 2027?
Geoff’s lean is toward a slight pullback, acknowledging that losing 14% is a significant headwind and that new entrants to coverage are unlikely to fully offset those departures in the near term. Nick pushes back with a case for stability or even modest growth: every new finding about GLP-1s seems to be positive, the drug’s use cases are expanding rapidly, and the Bank of America endorsement carries real weight with other employers watching. The drug started as a diabetes treatment, became a weight loss medication, and is now showing benefits around addiction, cancer metastasis risk, cardiovascular health, and behavioral changes like reduced alcohol and nicotine consumption. It is genuinely hard to see a drug with that track record losing ground among well-informed employers over time.
The most likely scenario, as both hosts acknowledge, is that the 36% figure masks significant movement in both directions: employers dropping coverage on one end while new adopters enter on the other, with the net number staying relatively flat while the underlying employer mix shifts. What is less uncertain is that the conversation around GLP-1s in benefits will not quiet down. The cost pressure is real, the efficacy data keeps getting stronger, and the consumer market is creating new models for coverage that did not exist two years ago.
Frequently Asked Questions
EY allocated $100 million in bonuses for employees who demonstrate human or people skills, alongside a separate pool for technology adoption. The decision reflects the reality that consulting is a relationship-driven business where client trust, narrative, and judgment cannot be replicated by AI. It also responds to external pressure from clients asking why consulting costs are not decreasing as AI improves efficiency. Rewarding human skills explicitly is both a cultural statement and a business strategy for a firm whose core value proposition is human expertise.
Yes. EY maintains both a human skills bonus pool and a separate pool for technology adoption, including AI usage. The firm is not framing it as AI versus people but as both being valued. The $100 million human skills commitment is notable precisely because it is additive, ensuring the human layer is not crowded out by the AI narrative internally.
Healthcare costs are rising well above general inflation, with health insurance costs projected to increase 9.2% for 2027. GLP-1 medications represent an entirely new category of spend that did not exist five years ago, and for many employers the cost is significant without a clear near-term return. The pullback is most common among high-turnover employers in retail and similar industries, where the long-term health benefits of GLP-1 coverage, reduced cardiovascular events and chronic disease costs, may materialize after the employee has already left the company.
It is central to the disagreement between enthusiastic adopters like Bank of America and the 14% dropping coverage. Bank of America employs long-tenured knowledge workers who are likely to remain at the company long enough for the health benefits to show up as reduced claims costs. High-turnover employers bear the medication cost without a reasonable expectation of capturing that downstream return. The drug’s efficacy is not really in dispute. Who benefits from the employer’s investment is.
Unlike drugs purchased exclusively through employer plans, GLP-1 medications are available in a growing direct-to-consumer market where competition is driving prices down over time. This creates a path for employers who cannot sustain full coverage: a subsidy model, contributing a fixed monthly amount toward an employee’s direct purchase, becomes more affordable and more practical as consumer prices decline. Nick argues this may ultimately be the mechanism that keeps GLP-1 access broadly available even as full employer coverage becomes harder to justify for some organizations.
Geoff leans toward a slight pullback from the current 36% adoption rate, given the 14% of employers already planning to drop coverage. Nick argues for stability or modest growth, pointing to the expanding evidence base for GLP-1 benefits and the likelihood that the Bank of America endorsement and similar public examples will bring new employers into coverage. Both acknowledge the number could stay roughly flat as the mix shifts, with departures offset by new adopters, while the underlying conversation about access and cost continues to evolve.
Full Episode Transcript
Nick: Welcome to the Wellable Weekly Podcast, where we talk about key topics and trends at the intersection of wellbeing, technology, and HR. I’m Nick, and for our regular listeners, you’re probably expecting me to say we have a special guest. We don’t. We had a little technical issue. Geoff is on his pre-paternity leave, and so we were going to give him a little break. But he came in and filled in for us. Geoff is back. So Geoff, what’s up?
Geoff: Just like a bad penny. Keep showing up. One more last hurrah here.
Nick: Exactly. Can’t kick him off the show. Let’s hop right into it. Two good articles about two topics we cover a ton. The first is about EY. That’s your alma mater, right?
Geoff: Yeah, alma mater, that’s right.
Nick: Geoff used to work at EY pre-Wellable. An article came out saying that EY has allocated $100 million in bonuses for employees who show people skills or human skills. The one caveat I would add is that they also have a bonus pool for technology adoption, which in this day and age is really paying people to use AI. So don’t know how much to read into it, but either way I find it interesting.
Geoff: When I was at EY, we would get things called RAC awards — recognition and achievement rewards — for all sorts of contributions. This feels like the same vein, identifying a specific recognition for people skills. Consulting is one of those industries where it’s such a people-centered business, now in the midst of a huge transformation. Your core business is human capital, but clients are starting to ask: how do you justify these consulting bills? Why can’t you use AI, make this more efficient, drive costs down? So it’s not surprising that EY is still trying to celebrate human skills and remind everyone that there is still a ton of value in softer, human-oriented skills. It can’t all be tech.
Nick: Exactly. We’ve talked about this in some form for the last six months or longer: at some point you’re going to reward outcomes. In consulting, you’re talking to a CEO of another company, giving them guidance, putting a narrative to data. Human skills have to matter. If you told me that EY, a big four consulting firm, gets more than $100 million of value from people skills, I believe that. The person or partner selling the business, selling a vision, putting a story to data — it has to be a people skills thing. The bond you build with your client is the thing that keeps bringing them back.
Geoff: Right. And as a consultant, you’re probably feeling it on both sides. Clients have high expectations for work products and cost. Internally you’re still chasing the partner path and trying to establish yourself in a world where everyone is focused on token usage and AI efficiency. It’s probably refreshing to have some light shine on the people element.
Nick: Good for the EY employees if this is incremental bonus funds. Presumably it means EY’s business is doing well, which is a good segue into our next topic — GLP-1s.
Just to set the landscape: healthcare costs in the US have always outpaced general inflation, but the last several years have been especially notable. Health insurance costs rose about 8.5% last year, and for 2027 they are expected to increase 9.2%. Way above inflation, and really challenging for employers, especially with demographic shifts compounding the pressure.
Into that environment, GLP-1s have become a flashpoint. What we’re seeing from a Business Group on Health survey is that 14% of employers in the US have already planned to drop GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits. We’re heading into benefit season and open enrollment, and employees at these companies are going to discover a meaningful benefit has been removed.
Geoff: That’s going to be a big change. We’re having these conversations with clients who are asking about creative solutions: if we’re not going to fully cover GLP-1s, maybe we offer a subsidy, cover $100 or $200 a month, and employees can go direct to the consumer marketplace where there are more options than ever and hopefully increasingly competitive prices. Maybe tie it to participation in a lifestyle program. But a full cut of that benefit could be a pretty dramatic change for employees who are counting on it.
Nick: The thing I really struggle with is how you can have someone like Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan go on CNBC and tout the spend on GLP-1s with pride — hundreds of millions of dollars — and call it a good investment, and then have 14% of other employers coming to a completely different conclusion. How do they see what’s happening in their organization and arrive at such a different view?
Geoff: I’d push back a little: not every company has the resources of Bank of America, or the luxury of waiting for a longer-term payback. Employees may not even stay with the company long enough to generate the positive health outcomes. It could just be: we believe this is a great thing, but in the near term our costs are out of control and we just don’t have that luxury.
Nick: That’s fair, and I’d double down on it. Bank of America, especially the Merrill Lynch investment banking division, is a heavy knowledge worker group where the people you have are really critical. Other employers in retail are built for high turnover. If you’re cycling through employees every six to twelve months, a lot of that GLP-1 investment just walks out the door.
Geoff: Right, so they’re on the cusp of whether this makes sense to continue, and the cost pressure probably just pushed it over the edge.
Nick: The other thing worth considering is the consumer market angle. GLP-1s have a large and growing direct-to-consumer market — much like products in sexual health or hair loss, there are people purchasing these outside employer plans entirely. Consumer markets drive down prices in ways that employer-plan drugs historically have not experienced. If you’re a drug purchased exclusively through an employer plan, the entry price is the floor — it only goes up. But if GLP-1 consumer prices keep declining through competition and scale, employers who cut full coverage today might anchor their future subsidy contributions to a much lower consumer price point. If you’re a believer in GLP-1s as beneficial for population health, the best thing that could happen is for the consumer market to grow and push prices down significantly.
Geoff: Especially since $100 to $200 a month right now likely wouldn’t cover a full subscription. But at some point it might, and if enough consumer market activity drives prices down, employers can stay involved and support a meaningful benefit without the full coverage burden they are struggling with today.
Nick: Here’s my prediction question: if employer GLP-1 adoption is currently around 36%, and we’re going to lose 14% of those employers, what does that number look like in 2027 — higher, the same, or lower?
Geoff: I’d say lower. What would you say?
Nick: I’d lean toward the same, and maybe even a little higher. The reason is that I have never seen a drug where virtually every new news story is positive. It started as a diabetes drug, became a weight loss drug, and now it’s showing benefits around addiction, social media use, gambling, drinking less, smoking less, certain cancers not metastasizing. Every study seems to add to the positive column. It’s hard to see a drug with that track record losing ground among well-informed employers. Enough new employers will see the Bank of America interview, look at the data, and decide it’s worth it.
Geoff: It’ll find a way. Something that impactful tends to find a way.
Nick: Brian Moynihan saying it’s a good investment on CNBC probably moves a few employers off the fence.
Geoff: Alright. Time will tell. I think that’s probably a good place to wrap. Always nice to end on a prediction. Thanks as always to those who tune in. You can catch Nick and a great lineup of guests here for the next month or so on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your pods. Be sure to subscribe to the Wellable Weekly Newsletter for a lot of great insights there. Thank you.
-
Share
-
-
-
-
