Healthy Paws Pet Enrollment Funnel Optimization

Healthy Paws Pet Enrollment Funnel Optimization

Web App Research | Evaluative Research

Project Overview

My Role: UX Researcher & Product Manager (Product Lead)
Timeline: Q3 2024 - Ongoing
Team: Senior Product Manager, and 2 UX Designers
Research Method: User testing, Click tracking, Session replays, and A/B testing

My role:

• Designed and executed a multiphase research strategy to identify key user pain points and prioritize solutions
• Conducted competitor audits and user testing sessions to uncover industry best practices and validate user needs
• Ran behavioral analysis using HotJar and Google Analytics to understand user journeys and pinpoint drop-off areas
• Collaborated with designers to test layout changes aimed at reducing friction and improving task completion rates
• Measured improvements through A/B testing and user sentiment to ensure solutions delivered measurable impact

Project Summary: Improved pet insurance enrollment by leading UX research and funnel redesign, boosting registrations by 3% and reducing user abandonment rate by 2%.

Project Results & Impact Overview

2.5%

2.5%

increase in overall enrollment MoM (April 2025 vs May 2025)

2%

2%

Decrease in Drop Off (Abandonment rate)

22%

22%

increase in interaction with coverage options (click through rate measured via Hotjar click maps)

Goal

Optimize the enrollment experience on the Healthy Paws website to reduce abandonment, improve trust, and increase conversion (bind) rates. Evaluate user pain points, benchmark against competitors (Nationwide, Embrace), and deliver actionable UX changes to streamline the customer enrollment process.

Let's Dive Deeper!

The Problem Statement

Despite high brand trust (80%), many users were abandoning the enrollment funnel without completing their pet insurance enrollment. Analytics and HotJar revealed users often skipped critical coverage sections or dropped off after seeing the initial quote. Our challenge was to understand what caused the challenge and optimize the flow to improve clarity, customization, and decision confidence.

Research Process

Before diving into research, I aligned with the UX Manager and Product Owner to review internal Google Analytics metrics, HotJar session recordings, and support insights from customer service. The data pointed to a clear trend: users often dropped off or skipped the coverage details page right after receiving their quote. While we had the what, we lacked the why. That’s where research came in. I designed a phased research plan that would help us understand competitor strategies, visualize user behavior, and validate changes with real users, starting with a competitive analysis to establish baseline patterns.

Competitive Analysis

Benchmarked 10 leading pet insurance competitors across their enrollment funnels, focusing on question structure, customization, trust signals, and discount visibility.

Method:
• Competitive benchmarking across Embrace, ASPCA, Pumpkin, Pets Best, Lemonade, MetLife, Spot, Fetch, Figo, and ManyPets

• 2 sets of user tests (10 participants total) for funnel usability and preference studies

Why this method & goal: Identify industry standards for usability, transparency, and friction points, and determine what features drive conversions.

Who was involved:
• Independent audit; insights were shared with the product and design teams

Process:
• Analyzed structure, customization options, and CTA strategies across all pet insurance competitors.

What came out of it:
Vet Exam & Discounts:

• Only Healthy Paws asks if your pet had a vet exam in the last 15 days, causing confusion for 40% of users, who weren’t sure if they could continue.

• Only 2 competitors ask about pre-existing conditions, and 2 ask if you have a primary vet.

• Most competitors (80%) show discounts like multipet or military discounts; Healthy Paws and Pumpkin do not.

Pet Age vs. Birth Year/Month:

• All competitors ask for your pet’s age, not birth year/month.

• In user testing, everyone preferred entering age; no one could recall birth year/month right away, and 40% would need to check records (especially for rescue pets).

• Healthy Paws is the only one using birth year/month, which made the process slower and more confusing.

Enrollment Funnel Comparison:

• The shortest forms: Healthy Paws, Fetch, and Pumpkin (19 - 22 questions).

• The longest: Lemonade (35 - 45 questions, 17 steps).

• Most competitors take 3 or 4 steps to reach the price page.

• Only 60% use a breadcrumb trail to show user progress.

Breed Selection Search Feature:

• 8 out of 10 competitors offer a search bar for breed selection, allowing users to quickly find their pet’s breed.

• Healthy Paws (and one other competitor) do not provide a search option, forcing users to scroll through a long dropdown list.

• User testing revealed that 70% of participants found scrolling frustrating, and several couldn’t locate their breed, leading to increased drop-off at this step.

• Adding a search feature was consistently requested during feedback sessions and identified as a quick win for usability.

Key Insights & Transition:
• Most competitors make enrollment easier by asking straightforward questions (like pet age) and showing discounts clearly.

• Healthy Paws’ extra steps and unclear vet exam requirements add complexity, which can confuse users and cause drop off.

• Data shows that simplifying inputs, displaying discounts, and making coverage clearer would meet user expectations and improve results.

Based on these findings, I moved into behavioral analysis, leveraging real user interaction data to validate whether these friction points correlated with drop-off in our funnel.

Benchmarked 10 leading pet insurance competitors across their enrollment funnels, focusing on question structure, customization, trust signals, and discount visibility.

Method:
• Competitive benchmarking across Embrace, ASPCA, Pumpkin, Pets Best, Lemonade, MetLife, Spot, Fetch, Figo, and ManyPets

• 2 sets of user tests (10 participants total) for funnel usability and preference studies

Why this method & goal: Identify industry standards for usability, transparency, and friction points, and determine what features drive conversions.

Who was involved:
• Independent audit; insights were shared with the product and design teams

Process:
• Analyzed structure, customization options, and CTA strategies across all pet insurance competitors.

What came out of it:
Vet Exam & Discounts:

• Only Healthy Paws asks if your pet had a vet exam in the last 15 days, causing confusion for 40% of users, who weren’t sure if they could continue.

• Only 2 competitors ask about pre-existing conditions, and 2 ask if you have a primary vet.

• Most competitors (80%) show discounts like multipet or military discounts; Healthy Paws and Pumpkin do not.

Pet Age vs. Birth Year/Month:

• All competitors ask for your pet’s age, not birth year/month.

• In user testing, everyone preferred entering age; no one could recall birth year/month right away, and 40% would need to check records (especially for rescue pets).

• Healthy Paws is the only one using birth year/month, which made the process slower and more confusing.

Enrollment Funnel Comparison:

• The shortest forms: Healthy Paws, Fetch, and Pumpkin (19 - 22 questions).

• The longest: Lemonade (35 - 45 questions, 17 steps).

• Most competitors take 3 or 4 steps to reach the price page.

• Only 60% use a breadcrumb trail to show user progress.

Key Insights & Transition:
• Most competitors make enrollment easier by asking straightforward questions (like pet age) and showing discounts clearly.

• Healthy Paws’ extra steps and unclear vet exam requirements add complexity, which can confuse users and cause drop off.

• Data shows that simplifying inputs, displaying discounts, and making coverage clearer would meet user expectations and improve results.

Based on these findings, I moved into behavioral analysis, leveraging real user interaction data to validate whether these friction points correlated with drop-off in our funnel.



Benchmarked 10 leading pet insurance competitors across their enrollment funnels, focusing on question structure, customization, trust signals, and discount visibility.

Method:
• Competitive benchmarking across Embrace, ASPCA, Pumpkin, Pets Best, Lemonade, MetLife, Spot, Fetch, Figo, and ManyPets

• 2 sets of user tests (10 participants total) for funnel usability and preference studies

Why this method & goal: Identify industry standards for usability, transparency, and friction points, and determine what features drive conversions.

Who was involved:
• Independent audit; insights were shared with the product and design teams

Process:
• Analyzed structure, customization options, and CTA strategies across all pet insurance competitors.

What came out of it:
Vet Exam & Discounts:

• Only Healthy Paws asks if your pet had a vet exam in the last 15 days, causing confusion for 40% of users, who weren’t sure if they could continue.

• Only 2 competitors ask about pre-existing conditions, and 2 ask if you have a primary vet.

• Most competitors (80%) show discounts like multipet or military discounts; Healthy Paws and Pumpkin do not.

Pet Age vs. Birth Year/Month:

• All competitors ask for your pet’s age, not birth year/month.

• In user testing, everyone preferred entering age; no one could recall birth year/month right away, and 40% would need to check records (especially for rescue pets).

• Healthy Paws is the only one using birth year/month, which made the process slower and more confusing.

Enrollment Funnel Comparison:

• The shortest forms: Healthy Paws, Fetch, and Pumpkin (19 - 22 questions).

• The longest: Lemonade (35 - 45 questions, 17 steps).

• Most competitors take 3 or 4 steps to reach the price page.

• Only 60% use a breadcrumb trail to show user progress.

Key Insights & Transition:
• Most competitors make enrollment easier by asking straightforward questions (like pet age) and showing discounts clearly.

• Healthy Paws’ extra steps and unclear vet exam requirements add complexity, which can confuse users and cause drop off.

• Data shows that simplifying inputs, displaying discounts, and making coverage clearer would meet user expectations and improve results.

Based on these findings, I moved into behavioral analysis, leveraging real user interaction data to validate whether these friction points correlated with drop-off in our funnel.


Image 1 (On the left) Competitor Breed Selection: Most competitors offer a search bar for breed selection, making it easy for users to find their pet’s breed quickly.

Image 2 (On the right): Healthy Paws Breed Dropdown: Healthy Paws’ breed selection forces users to scroll through a long dropdown with no search option, creating unnecessary friction and frustration.

Behavioral Analysis

After identifying opportunities to improve our enrollment funnel, I started by benchmarking competitors to understand industry best practices and features that drive conversions.

Hotjar & Google Analytics:
Analyzed actual user interactions in the enrollment funnel to see if observed pain points led to dropoff or confusion.

How Behavioral Analysis was Conducted:

• Used Hotjar click tracking, session replays, and Google Analytics.

• Methods included funnel analysis, click heat maps, and scroll depth tracking.

Goal:
To visualize exactly where users struggled or disengaged, and confirm if competitive analysis findings held true in practice.

Who was involved:
Findings were reviewed with Design, Product, and Engineering.

Process:

• Monitored clicks on CTAs, toggles, and navigation using Hotjar.

• Analyzed scroll depth and session replays.

• Measured how many users skipped or engaged with coverage and eligibility sections.

Key Findings:
Out of 20 sessions viewed:

• 60% of users clicked “Next” after viewing the quote, skipping coverage details.
• 80% of users spent over 30 seconds scrolling through the breed dropdown, searching manually for their pet’s breed due to the lack of a search feature.

• Only 30% scrolled past pricing breakdowns; most ignored coverage modules.

• Drop off rates spiked at eligibility questions, especially those requiring birth date or vet exam info.

Key Insight & Next Step:
Behavioral data confirmed friction at the specific points identified in the competitive analysis, but didn’t explain user motivations. To understand the why behind user behavior, I next conducted moderated usability tests to capture user pain points in real time.

Moderated Usability Testing

We had identified the problem area through behavioral data and now it was time to hear directly from users to understand their perceptions and expectations.

Method: Remote Moderated Testing

Why this method & goal: To validate behavioral findings and uncover perception issues around layout, content clarity, and terminology in the enrollment flow.

Who was involved:
• 10 prospective pet insurance customers (had pets, but no insurance yet)
• Sessions and insights shared with the UX team

Process:
• Participants walked through the quoting and enrollment process using the current site
• Used think-aloud protocol to capture confusion, assumptions, and hesitation

What came out of it:
• 80% of users skipped the coverage section at the bottom of Step 2
• Those same users assumed they were finished after seeing the quote price
• Insurance terminology (e.g. “Medical Record” “SOAP Notes”) caused confusion and hesitation

Transition:
With the both behavioral and qualitative insights, I collaborated with design to test layout and content adjustments aimed at increasing visibility and comprehension.

Design Ideation, Iteration & A/B Testing

With clear pain points validated through usability testing, I worked with designers to prototype and test layout changes aimed at increasing visibility of the coverage section and improving comprehension before users clicked “Next.”


Method: Design Prototyping + A/B Testing


Why this method & goal: To evaluate whether layout changes, specifically repositioning the coverage section would improve user engagement and reduce premature drop off.


Who was involved:
• UX Designer, Engineering, and Product teams for implementation and tracking


Process:
• Created a variant where the coverage section was moved above the “Next” button (vs. current control version)
• Rewrote key terms in plain language for better understanding
• Conducted A/B testing on live traffic using Google Analytics (GA) and HotJar for behavioral tracking


What came out of it:
• Placement change increased coverage engagement by 22%
• Scroll depth improved by 18%, with users spending more time reviewing plan details
• Early stage quote to bind conversion increased by ~12% in the variant group


Transition:
With promising results, I shared these insights in a cross functional meeting with Senior Designers and recommended a phased rollout of similar layout improvements sitewide.

What I'm Doing Now & What's Next

This project is still in progress. Following the initial A/B test, I’m currently:

• Analyzing multi device performance (desktop vs. mobile quoting behavior)

• Testing new coverage customization visibility patterns (e.g. collapsible modules and accordion)

• Partnering with Product and Design to iterate on terminology clarity based on user feedback


Next, I plan to:

• Conduct longitudinal testing on post bind behavior to assess retention and comprehension

• Implement micro surveys during the quoting flow to gather in the moment sentiment

• Propose a phased rollout strategy for broader site updates

Overall Reflection

Product Management Impact

• Aligned Design, Product, and Engineering around a phased testing plan grounded in behavioral data

• Translated research insights into clear product requirements and UI priorities (e.g. CTA placement, copy changes)

• Managed cross functional check ins and debriefs to track progress, share findings, and make decisions

• Advocated for iterative rollout, balancing UX improvements with technical feasibility and business deadlines

• Proposed ongoing tracking mechanisms (e.g. post launch surveys, longitudinal studies) to support continuous optimization

My POV

This project reinforced how small layout decisions can create big usability shifts, especially in high stakes, high intent flows like insurance. The issue wasn’t that users didn’t care; it was that we weren’t surfacing information at the right time.


If I had more time, I would:

• Run mobile first quoting optimizations

• Test iconography alongside terminology for faster comprehension

• Launch a continuous feedback loop (post survey) to monitor confidence post purchase

• Add dismissible tooltips (such as accordion) or short guided hints for first time visitors to improve onboarding without overly distracting their enrollment process (able to exit out of the module quickly).

View Other Case Studies