UX Writing Case Study: Canada Life
Project Overview
This case study is a personal initiative that originated from my role at Canada Life. As a customer service representative, I often hear about the challenges clients face on a daily basis. While many of these issues relate to claim assessments, a significant number also involve difficulties with website navigation, the site's user experience (UX), and how coverage and claim details are presented. The primary focus of this case study is on claim submissions, particularly drug submissions, as the pain points uncovered later can be addressed through improvements in writing and content.
Project Duration
January 2025 - March 2025
Initial Problem + Research
Identifying the issue with claim submissions was straightforward. As mentioned earlier, being the primary point of contact for clients allowed me to hear firsthand about the challenges they faced on a daily basis. To assess whether it was a widespread issue, I tracked the number of calls I received each day related to drug claim submissions. I consistently received at least one call per day about it. To gather a larger sample size, I reached out to colleagues in my group work chats and was able to get two other drug-trained colleagues to track their calls related to drug claim submissions. This was the most challenging part, as it required follow-ups to ensure I received their results. Ultimately, their findings aligned with mine.
Pain Points
Since the issue with drug claim submissions was apparent. I wanted to identify the pain points to understand why there was such a struggle with it. I used working as a customer service rep to my advantage. My advantage was being able to listen to what the pain points were first hand and what I discovered was:
Alternative solution wasn’t intuitive
A common issue clients faced was submitting claims for compounded drugs or diabetic supplies. While clients typically had official pharmacy receipts for these items, the submission process would request a DIN number. However, these DINs often didn’t work due to claim processing reasons on our end. When the DINs failed, the only alternative was for clients to submit the claim through a different section of the site. The problem was, they wouldn’t know about this alternative section unless they contacted our support line.
Alternative solution was more difficult
In addition to the alternative process not being intuitive, it also introduced an extra step for successful claim submission: clients had to include a claim form. This created two issues. First, it required clients to be somewhat tech-savvy, as they needed to use another application to complete the form. Second, it made submitting claims through the mobile app much more challenging, since the form was also required in that case.
Usability Testing
To gain a deeper understanding of the issue, I observed how users interacted with the site when submitting a drug claim. I conducted usability tests with four tech-savvy individuals I knew who were also insured by Canada Life. I provided them with two mock receipts with real-life examples and asked them to share their screen while attempting to submit a claim.
Results
The average time spent trying to submit this mock receipt was 7 minutes. Most of the time spent was at “Add an expense”. When asking users where they think they would’ve submitted the claim, the response was either they didn’t want to submit it or they would’ve submitted it as different receipt type.
It was conclusive that the “Add an Expense” page was the problem. Users chose what they thought was the obvious choice in the usability test. They were given a pharmacy receipt and a DIN number to enter but that option didn’t work. When asked to think of alternative ways of submitting the claim, no one was confident in their selection. This was fair because as displayed in the last picture, the item on the receipt did not match any of the options.
Working Towards a Solutions
Before I started coming up with a solution. I created two personas to empathize with when brainstorming ideas so I would know who I’m designing/writing for.
Brainstorming
At first, I thought the issue was with claim submission, but I later realized it was how the options were presented. I considered solutions like adjusting “Receipt type” options, making the DIN optional, or removing it entirely.
Final Decision
I decided to update the form options to improve back-end processing. Since any selection can have a DIN, it was unfair for only one to include it. While receipts with a non-working or missing DIN require manual processing, valid DINs enable automation. Differentiating this was crucial, as an earlier screen already confirms the receipt type—repeating the question was unnecessary.
What It Looks Like
I reduced the form options from three to two, improving flexibility and reducing user confusion. Previously, compounded medication DINs didn’t work, leading users to search the site or contact support. Now, the new options eliminate that issue. Similarly, clinic invoices for products like synovial fluids or allergy serums may or may not include a DIN, but the updated form can accept both. This solution addresses both pain points, making it more intuitive and user-friendly. It also reduces steps for users, including those on the mobile app.
