This project and its details are protected under an NDA. Please email me at hello@connormorgan.io for access. I would love to walk you through.
Context
BetterHelp members in strict-regulation states (including California) who canceled for affordability reasons were never shown that their insurance might cover therapy at a lower cost. No save mechanism existed before a member selected a cancellation reason, and the existing insurance-eligibility flow had almost no visibility from the cancellation path.
My Contribution
I supported the research that shaped the problem framing, then designed the offer experience and flow that would surface insurance eligibility to members at the moment they started to cancel, before asking them why. I worked within a hard constraint: per FTC one-click-cancel requirements in these states, the offer could not add a required step or slow down cancellation in any way.
Approach
Mapped where in the existing cancellation flow an insurance offer could realistically live without violating one-click-cancel obligations
Designed a dismissible, non-blocking card that routes interested members into BetterHelp's existing coverage-check flow, while leaving "cancel" always one tap away
Worked closely with legal and compliance to keep messaging accurate across multiple states with different rules
Defined the eligibility logic (state, payer type, account stage) that determines who sees the offer
Outcome
The design and spec were finalized for an A/B test measuring save rate, retained revenue, and cannibalization of organic insurance sign-ups. Modeling suggested a meaningful share of otherwise-lost, price-sensitive members could be retained as lower-cost insurance members instead of churning entirely.
Learnings
This was my first time designing inside a hard legal constraint rather than a purely UX one. It taught me how to treat compliance requirements as a design input rather than an obstacle, and how to scope a fast, focused intervention rather than a full redesign when time and access are limited.