CASE STUDY
EHEALTH INSURANCE
Designing Medicare Supplement shopping to make plan comparison transparent, personalized, and easier to trust.
Created a more transparent Medicare Supplement shopping experience that allowed users to compare participating carriers, see more accurate pricing, and enroll online with greater confidence — despite complex compliance, legal, and state-level insurance constraints.
Personalized
Eligibility
Tool
Making Medicare Supplement pricing feel accurate, transparent, and easy to understand - so shoppers can compare
53%
YoY increase in personalized
quote starts & conversions
100%
Participant form
comprehension rate
ROLE
Lead Designer
YEAR
2025
COMPANY
eHealth Insurance
COMPANY
eHealth Insurance
ROLE
Lead Designer
PLATFORM
Desktop, Tablet,Mobile
TEAM
Product, Engineering, Compliance, Marketing, Legal
PARTNERS
Cigna, Aetna, Mutual of Omaha, Anthem & etc.
OVERVIEW
Medicare shoppers face a high-stakes, confusing decision: choosing between Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage, then finding the right plan, carrier, and price.
eHealth had a major advantage: as a licensed online insurance marketplace, it gave shoppers access to plans from multiple national and regional carriers, with Medicare Supplement plan types standardized across 47 states. But the existing experience was not doing enough to turn traffic into enrollments.
Our MVP goal was to rebrand and redesign the Medicare Supplement shopping experience so users could quickly see available plans in their area, compare options by plan type and carrier, and get accurate pricing based on their personal information.
The redesign focused on transparency, trust, and decision clarity — helping users understand what they were eligible for, compare real plan options side by side, and move forward with more confidence.
DESIGN PROCESS
A structures MVP design process helped the team move from discovery to final approval - balancing user needs, design & business goals, compliance requirements, and state-specific insurance constraints.
PROBLEM
CONCEPT TESTING
Users arrived research-ready. The page wasn't.
Visitors came to the Medicare Supplement page having already decided on Medigap over Medicare Advantage. They needed to complete two remaining decisions — quickly, confidently — but found static content instead of decision tools
Visitors came to the Medicare Supplement page having already decided on Medigap over Medicare Advantage. They needed to complete two remaining decisions — quickly, confidently — but found static content instead of decision tools
Participants wanted comparison tools, not content hubs
Competitive analysis benchmarked Humana, UnitedHealthcare, VIA Benefits, AARP, and Medicare.gov. Participants reacted to examples of each pattern in-session.
WHAT RESONATED
No plan comparison or filtering tools
Plan comparison matrix with inline pricing
No filter by company or benefit
Filter by company as a first step
Education disconnected from the quote flow
Infographics — strong enthusiasm when shown
Infographics — strong enthusiasm when shown
In-context modals during plan exploration
In-context modals during plan exploration
Downloadable / printable plan summaries
THE THREE DECISIONS GATES
WHAT RESONATED
WHAT DIDN'T LAND
Medicare Supplement vs. Medicare Advantage
Articles as primary education — "hard to remember"
No filter by company or benefit
Static comparison tables with no sort controls
Education disconnected from the quote flow
Infographics buried in a resource page
SOLUTION
01
PLAN SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Comparison matrix
Side-by-side plan matrix showing per-benefit coverage and "you pay" amounts.
Sort by premium or deductible low-to-high. -
Infographic benefit cards surfacing catastrophic protection, travel coverage, and lifetime renewal in context.
02
CARRIER SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Filter by company as a first-class parameters
Brand familiarity drove carrier decisions more than any comparison metric. Letting users shortlist known carriers upfront accelerated the path to a quote and reduced decision fatigue.
03
SWITCHER VS NEW TO MEDICARE
DESIGN DECISION
Underwriting guidance
Dedicated module addressing the three informational needs unique to existing enrollees: underwriting eligibility windows & switching timing
CONCEPT TESTING
Participants wanted comparison tools, not content hubs
Competitive analysis benchmarked Humana, UnitedHealthcare, VIA Benefits, AARP, and Medicare.gov. Participants reacted to examples of each pattern in-session.
WHAT RESONATED
Plan comparison matrix with inline pricing
Filter by company as a first step
Infographics — strong enthusiasm when shown
In-context modals during plan exploration
Downloadable / printable plan summaries
WHAT DIDN'T LAND
Articles as primary education — "hard to remember"
Static comparison tables with no sort controls
Infographics buried in a resource page
SOLUTION
01
PLAN SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Comparison matrix
Side-by-side plan matrix showing per-benefit coverage and "you pay" amounts.
Sort by premium or deductible low-to-high. -
Infographic benefit cards surfacing catastrophic protection, travel coverage, and lifetime renewal in context.
02
CARRIER SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Filter by company as a first-class parameters
Brand familiarity drove carrier decisions more than any comparison metric. Letting users shortlist known carriers upfront accelerated the path to a quote and reduced decision fatigue.
03
SWITCHER VS NEW TO MEDICARE
DESIGN DECISION
Underwriting guidance
Dedicated module addressing the three informational needs unique to existing enrollees: underwriting eligibility windows & switching timing
PROBLEM
Where the page failed
No plan comparison or filtering tools
No filter by company or benefit
Education disconnected from the quote flow
The three decisions gates
Medicare Supplement vs. Medicare Advantage
No filter by company or benefit
Education disconnected from the quote flow
Users arrived research-ready. The page wasn't.
Visitors came to the Medicare Supplement page having already decided on Medigap over Medicare Advantage. They needed to complete two remaining decisions — quickly, confidently — but found static content instead of decision tools
IDEAS VALIDATION
Sketching early, validating often
Sketching early, validating often
Early sketches were created to review with stakeholders and compliance partners before any visual design began. These were low-fidelity enough to invite feedback, but structured enough to represent real flow decisions.
User testing on these sketches validated the step structure and revealed where guidance copy was most critical.
Early sketches were created to review with stakeholders and compliance partners before any visual design began. These were low-fidelity enough to invite feedback, but structured enough to represent real flow decisions.
IDEAS VALIDATION
Sketching early, validating often
Early sketches were created to review with stakeholders and compliance partners before any visual design began. These were low-fidelity enough to invite feedback, but structured enough to represent real flow decisions.
User testing on these sketches validated the step structure and revealed where guidance copy was most critical.
PROBLEM
Where the page failed
No plan comparison or filtering tools
No filter by company or benefit
Education disconnected from the quote flow
The three decisions gates
Medicare Supplement vs. Medicare Advantage
No filter by company or benefit
Education disconnected from the quote flow
Users arrived research-ready. The page wasn't.
Visitors came to the Medicare Supplement page having already decided on Medigap over Medicare Advantage. They needed to complete two remaining decisions — quickly, confidently — but found static content instead of decision tools
RESEARCH - METHOD
30-minute 1:1 interviews with 11 participants
Recruited via UserZoom and User Interviews. Primary focus on New-to-Medicare individuals ages 64–67, with two switcher personas included. Discussion guide informed by stakeholder interviews, competitive analysis of six competitor sites, and the DEFT 2023 Medicare Shopping & Switching Study.
Participants interviewed
11
Age-ins likely to choose Medigap annually
690K
Existing MedSupp enrollees shop each year
43%
RESEARCH - INSIGHTS
Four insights that reframed the product direction
01
Every participant hit the same three decision checkpoints — in the same order
The journey was consistent regardless of prior insurance sophistication. The page treated these decisions as parallel; users experienced them as sequential gates. We were optimizing for the wrong one.
02
Catastrophic cost protection was the core emotional driver — not routine care
"
I've got the supplemental plan as a backstop, so if something goes awry, then I wouldn't be financially bankrupt with medical costs.
Participant · F, 67, WA
Users needed worst-case exposure clarity — deductibles, out-of-state coverage, ambulance costs — and the ability to sort plans by deductible. A cost calculator was the single most-requested tool across all 11 sessions.
03
Doctor network restrictions were why users chose Medigap over Medicare Advantage
"
I wanted to make sure I could keep my primary care doctor and have more independence if I want to go out and get a second opinion.
Participant · F, 65, NC
A doctor-coverage check to disqualify Medicare Advantage early in the journey was a higher-value feature than any MA/MS comparison content. Users had already resolved this decision — they needed confirmation, not education.
04
Switchers need a completely different journey
Existing MedSupp enrollees had distinct informational needs around underwriting timing, switching windows, and financial penalties — topics the current page didn't address. With 14.6M currently enrolled and 43% shopping annually, this was a significant unserved segment.
30-minute 1:1 interviews with 11 participants
Recruited via UserZoom and User Interviews. Primary focus on New-to-Medicare individuals ages 64–67, with two switcher personas included. Discussion guide informed by stakeholder interviews, competitive analysis of six competitor sites, and the DEFT 2023 Medicare Shopping & Switching Study.
CONCEPT TESTING
Participants wanted comparison tools, not content hubs
Competitive analysis benchmarked Humana, UnitedHealthcare, VIA Benefits, AARP, and Medicare.gov. Participants reacted to examples of each pattern in-session.
WHAT RESONATED
Plan comparison matrix with inline pricing
Filter by company as a first step
Infographics — strong enthusiasm when shown
In-context modals during plan exploration
Downloadable / printable plan summaries
WHAT DIDN'T LAND
Articles as primary education — "hard to remember"
Static comparison tables with no sort controls
Infographics buried in a resource page
SOLUTION
01
PLAN SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Comparison matrix
Side-by-side plan matrix showing per-benefit coverage and "you pay" amounts.
Sort by premium or deductible low-to-high. -
Infographic benefit cards surfacing catastrophic protection, travel coverage, and lifetime renewal in context.
02
CARRIER SELECTION
DESIGN DECISION
Filter by company as a first-class parameters
Brand familiarity drove carrier decisions more than any comparison metric. Letting users shortlist known carriers upfront accelerated the path to a quote and reduced decision fatigue.
03
SWITCHER VS NEW TO MEDICARE
DESIGN DECISION
Underwriting guidance
Dedicated module addressing the three informational needs unique to existing enrollees: underwriting eligibility windows & switching timing
RESULTS
Research established the business case for feature-level investment
76% of age-ins leaning MedSupp were already at least somewhat certain of their plan type — meaning the page's job was to confirm and convert, not educate from scratch.
NEXT STEP
What comes next
Build a switcher-specific landing path with underwriting eligibility guidance
Explore personalized plan recommendations based on stated health priorities
Anna Mazzanti
Product Designer
2026
RESEARCH - METHOD
30-minute 1:1 interviews with 11 participants
Recruited via UserZoom and User Interviews. Primary focus on New-to-Medicare individuals ages 64–67, with two switcher personas included. Discussion guide informed by stakeholder interviews, competitive analysis of six competitor sites, and the DEFT 2023 Medicare Shopping & Switching Study.
Participants interviewed
11
Age-ins likely to choose Medigap annually
690K
Existing MedSupp enrollees shop each year
43%
RESEARCH - INSIGHTS
Four insights that reframed the product direction
01
Every participant hit the same three decision checkpoints — in the same order
The journey was consistent regardless of prior insurance sophistication. The page treated these decisions as parallel; users experienced them as sequential gates. We were optimizing for the wrong one.
02
Catastrophic cost protection was the core emotional driver — not routine care
"
I've got the supplemental plan as a backstop, so if something goes awry, then I wouldn't be financially bankrupt with medical costs.
Participant · F, 67, WA
Users needed worst-case exposure clarity — deductibles, out-of-state coverage, ambulance costs — and the ability to sort plans by deductible. A cost calculator was the single most-requested tool across all 11 sessions.
03
Doctor network restrictions were why users chose Medigap over Medicare Advantage
"
I wanted to make sure I could keep my primary care doctor and have more independence if I want to go out and get a second opinion.
Participant · F, 65, NC
A doctor-coverage check to disqualify Medicare Advantage early in the journey was a higher-value feature than any MA/MS comparison content. Users had already resolved this decision — they needed confirmation, not education.
04
Switchers need a completely different journey
Existing MedSupp enrollees had distinct informational needs around underwriting timing, switching windows, and financial penalties — topics the current page didn't address. With 14.6M currently enrolled and 43% shopping annually, this was a significant unserved segment.
30-minute 1:1 interviews with 11 participants
Recruited via UserZoom and User Interviews. Primary focus on New-to-Medicare individuals ages 64–67, with two switcher personas included. Discussion guide informed by stakeholder interviews, competitive analysis of six competitor sites, and the DEFT 2023 Medicare Shopping & Switching Study.
RESULTS
Research established the business case for feature-level investment
76% of age-ins leaning MedSupp were already at least somewhat certain of their plan type — meaning the page's job was to confirm and convert, not educate from scratch.
NEXT STEP
What comes next
Build a switcher-specific landing path with underwriting eligibility guidance
Explore personalized plan recommendations based on stated health priorities
Anna Mazzanti
Product Designer
2026