Marty Traynor is vice presidentof voluntary benefits at Mutual of Omaha.

I recently came across an article in the New York Times byMargot Sanger-Katz headlined “Getting Sick Can Be Really Expensive, Even for theInsured.” It opens with this sentence: “When you get reallysick, the medical bills may not be your biggest financialshock.”

The article goes on to say what we in the voluntary benefits market have known for years:The cost of a serious medical condition is far more thansimply the cost of the medical treatment.

In the past few years, there has been a public focus on anddebate about the ACA, along with public awareness of the increasing cost of health care. This hasdistracted benefits buyers (and, evidently, economists) from thereality that medical costs are only part of the loss associatedwith serious health issues, and that the need for disability income protection insurance is justas basic as the need for medical coverage. In addition, insuredproducts like critical illness and accident coverage can paybenefits to help relieve the financial stress associated withnon-covered expenses.

Related: 5 reasons you should be offering accidentinsurance

The article ends by advocating that politicians think aboutbetter ways to protect people against the risk of income loss andrelated expenses. They act as if it's the only answer. But we knowbetter, don't we?

Does the author advocate turning to politics because researchersignore messages from benefits professionals, or is it because we donot put enough focus on our message? Is the issue with them—orus?

Let's ask ourselves about our own messaging regardinghealth-related security needs. Why is medical insurance seen bymost as an “I've got to have it” benefit, while disability incomeprotection is viewed as a “why do I need it” benefit? Why do wefail to counsel employers to consider disability income protectionwhen this is such a basic need?

If we think we are doing a good job in this area, how can weexplain a recent LIMRA study of nearly 1,500 employers which foundthat only 46 percent offered short-term disability incomeprotection, while just 41 percent offered long-term incomeprotection? Are we really asking employers the right questions andmaking the right recommendations? Are we reminding them that awell-managed disability income product is backed by claims servicesintended to help manage the process of helping employees get backto work productively?

In addition, insured income protection products can pay partialincome replacement benefits to encourage employees to get back tothe workforce and preserve their earning power. Are we remindingemployers how cost-effective that is versus the expense of hiringand training a replacement worker? In enrollment communicationscampaigns, are we effectively educating employees on the value ofdisability income protection products?

And then there are supplemental medical products. They, too, canhelp offset some of the expenses associated with a serious accidentor illness, and since the benefit is usually paid to the employee,they also cover some of the lost income.

At first, my reaction to the article was to blame“them”—researchers, reporters and the employers and employees whohave ignored our messages. But the more I thought about it, themore I asked whether the problem is them or us. I looked in amirror to find my answer: We can do better.