A pay-per-use EAP operates differently from traditional models that charge a set fee per employee each year. Instead, the employer is charged only when an employee books and attends a session. This means if your team uses two counselling sessions in a month, you only pay for those two sessions.

Providers often offer multiple access methods, including phone, video, and in-person counselling. In some cases, usage reports can be provided so employers can see anonymised data on how the service is being accessed. The flexibility of this model allows businesses to maintain support options without committing to a large fixed budget.

A pay-per-use Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers several advantages for employers. It is cost-efficient, as businesses only pay for the services their employees actually use. This makes it particularly attractive for smaller teams or organisations where uptake is relatively low. The model is also highly adaptable, working well for industries with fluctuating staff numbers, such as seasonal or project-based sectors. For many employers, it provides a way to deliver valuable mental health support without the financial commitment of large annual contracts.

However, there are also drawbacks to consider. The most significant is budget unpredictability—if employee usage suddenly increases, monthly costs may be higher than expected. In addition, because charges are tied to use, some organisations may promote the service less frequently to avoid increased costs. This can reduce overall employee awareness and limit proactive engagement with the program.

The pay-per-use model is especially well suited to industries where staff numbers change frequently or where operational demands vary throughout the year. Retail and hospitality businesses, for example, experience high turnover and irregular rosters, making flexibility essential. In construction, where project timelines and workforce size shift regularly, a fixed annual EAP can be impractical. Professional services firms such as small law, accounting, or consulting practices often prefer this approach because it allows them to provide quality mental health support without overcommitting financially. Similarly, in agriculture and other seasonal industries, usage-based pricing helps employers align costs with staffing needs.

Before adopting a pay-per-use EAP, employers should clarify key details with potential providers. Questions to ask include: What is the cost per session, and does pricing vary depending on the time of day or type of counselling? Are there minimum usage requirements or setup fees? How quickly can employees access an appointment once they make a request? Is crisis support available around the clock? Can the provider share anonymised usage reports so employers can track effectiveness without breaching confidentiality? Finally, it’s essential to confirm the qualifications of the counsellors, ensuring they are registered with recognised professional bodies.

Successful implementation depends on clear communication and consistent promotion. Employers should reassure staff that the service is confidential and free for them to use, while making sure access details such as phone numbers, booking links, and operating hours are easy to find. Training managers and supervisors to spot early signs of distress and refer employees to the program appropriately is also important. Over time, usage and feedback should be monitored through anonymised data to ensure the service is delivering value. If engagement is low, employers can boost awareness by integrating EAP information into onboarding, running wellbeing sessions, or reminding staff about the resource in regular communications.